2

Important Theories in International Relations

What Is a ‘Theory’ and Why Is It Required?

A theory is an analytical tool for understanding, explaining and making predictions about a given subject matter. It is a body of rules, ideas, principles or techniques to explain a natural event that can be put to test and is capable of predicting future events. A theory, in the scientific sense, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. It is necessary because it acts as a guiding principle to systematically structure our observations. Different persons with different assumptions and perspectives may observe an event differently. A theory can tell us what to accept and what to ignore in our observations. Without the guidance of a theory, observers would be lost in the sea of facts and data, would be unable to systematically explain and structure their observations. A theory is unavoidable as it guides observers to systematically analyse their observations among a huge quantity of contradictory facts and data. It leads to an accurate and proper explanation of the subject matter.

Theories in International Relations

Theories in International Relations (IR) attempt to provide a conceptual framework that would help to analyse properly different aspects of the discipline. Theory-building in IR proceeded, like in many other disciplines, with historical and contemporary developments taking place across the world. When nation-states and their relations were of prime importance, theories developed around the subject matters of the nation-state, such as war and peace. Later, when non-state actors and events came to influence IR thinking, various new theories such as behaviouralism, globalization and postmodernism concerning these areas developed. In a similar vein, future events taking place in the world would provoke many more theories in IR. Theories in IR, as in other social sciences, sometimes develop around values, and they may also contain visions about the future world, the world we prefer to see and live in.

Earlier theorists in IR were concerned with the survival of the nation-state system, because they had observed the holocaust of the First World War. IR, which developed as an academic discipline after the First World War, was mainly preoccupied with the nation-states and their interactions in its early days. As frequent wars were threatening the existence of nation-states, early IR thinkers developed theories on war and the ways to avoid war. Thus theories on peace also developed alongside theories on war. Concern with nation-states, their wars, interests and efforts for peace gave birth to theories like liberalism and realism. Later, when nation-states and their interplay became rather stale, new observations developed in IR. These generated theories like behaviouralism and globalization, which tried to focus on non-state issues in the discipline. At a still later stage, post-positivist theories developed, which sought to challenge all earlier theories. For instance, postmodernism, which comes under the huge umbrella of post-positivist theories in IR, claims that there cannot be any objective truth in IR; everything in IR or social sciences is subjective, built around human notions of values, ideas, emotions and beliefs. So, once these constructions (known as theories) based on so-called ‘objective truth’ are deconstructed, their hollowness gets exposed. Liberal ideas of cooperation and peace, or realistic ideas about conflict of interests, are actually subjective interpretaions, not to be taken as eternal ‘objective truth’, argue the postmodernists. According to them, every theory must be deconstructed to arrive at new conclusions. Although postmodernists were criticized as negativists, they were able to mark their presence in the sphere of theory-building in IR. So, theories in IR are numerous and varied as they progressed alongside courses of development that occurred in the world from time to time.

An important question is: which theory, among this variegated lot, is to be accepted as the most important? The answer to this apparently simple question would lead students of IR to a debate currently taking place in the discipline. One prominent view is: since a theory helps us to systematically structure our thinking of the world, it is necessary to identify the best possible theory that would help us in this direction. Another view holds that there is no need to identify any particular theory as ‘important’ or ‘all-inclusive’ in IR. As theories develop around human observations, these would be divergent. It is best to seek the help of all these theories on an ‘issue-based approach’. In a social science discipline, it is difficult to formulate a ‘principal theory’ applicable to all problems. Different theories may be required to solve different kinds of problems. The debate continues among scholars in the discipline. With these preliminary ideas about theories in IR, we proceed to discuss some of the major theories in the discipline of IR.

Liberal Theory (including Pluralism)

The evolution of liberal philosophy covers a vast period in history—from the Reformation Movement in the sixteenth century till today. During this long span of existence, liberalism came under the influence of various intellectual minds, trends and historical forces. It shattered the spiritual illusions nurtured carefully by the feudal society, and gave birth to a scientific and secular view of life. It helped to remove feudal superstitions and religious dogmatism, and brought reason, courage, confidence and self-respect. For these reasons, liberalism was associated with modernization of society and individual life. Liberal philosophers, beginning with John Locke in the seventeenth century, emphasized individual liberty and freedom, which could be sustained in a free civil society and within an encouraging state that would allow individual liberty and aspirations to flourish. Individual liberty, believed other liberal thinkers like Immanuel Kant, J. S. Mill and T. H. Green to name a few, could be nurtured best within a cooperative organization of people, like the state. An individual’s liberty and freedom are not in contradiction to the creation and existence of the state; in fact these are ensured by a liberal, less interfering state. This view of the liberal, encouraging and less-intrusive state influenced scholars in IR; they developed a liberal tradition in IR thinking, which was later identified as the liberal theory in IR.

Liberal theory (or Liberalism) in IR is closely associated with the following ideas: (1) a modern liberal state that encourages human activities for the development of society; (2) state- and non-state actors as partners in the development process; (3) a peaceful state based on democratic principles as the best promoter of a peaceful international order; (4) free economic systems within the state and on an international level and (5) interdependent national and international orders. Liberalism is a product of history and courses of development in the international order. Early liberals like Norman Angell and Woodrow Wilson, who had witnessed the tragedy of the First World War, were concerned more with a peaceful international order based on cooperation among nation-states. This peaceful world order could only be ensured by peaceful, liberal-democratic nation-states which valued individual freedom and liberty, and promoted competitive economy. This period of early liberalism in IR which originated after the First World War was also known as utopian or idealist liberalism because the protagonists believed in an ideal world order free from conflicts and war. But with the emergence of Nazi Germany, fascist Italy and the failure of the League of Nations, idealist liberalism lost grounds to neo-realist theory (discussed in the next section of this chapter), which began to emerge from the late 1930s. However, liberalism in IR was revived with renewed vigour after the Second World War, as it generated newer ideas and thinking which enriched the study of the discipline.

Post–Second World War liberalism in IR developed into a multi-faceted doctrine. Authors like Robert Jackson and Georg Sorensen (2003) have identified four main branches of post–Second World War liberalism: sociological liberalism, interdependence liberalism, institutional liberalism and republican liberalism. The core idea of sociological liberalism refers to IR as the study of relations among individuals, groups and societies, in addition to the study of interactions among national governments. A. J. P. Taylor, John Burton and James Rosenau are the leading theorists of sociological liberalism which views IR also as the study of ‘informal’ relations among groups and societies beyond the more ‘formal’ relations between governments of different nation-states. Interdependence liberalism believes that with the advancement of science, technology and trade, nation-states get engaged in a complex web of interdependence. Liberal theorists like David Mitrany, Ernst Haas, Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye argue that modern states are welfare—and not security—organizations. The primary goal of these welfare states is to secure a cooperative international order based on mutual understanding. Non-state actors are important instruments of this cooperative international order which seeks to promote peace, and not conflict, in the world. Institutional liberalism holds the view that international institutions like the UNO (United Nations Organization), WTO (World Trade Organization), NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization), European Union (EU) help to promote cooperation among states in the world and strengthen efforts for international peace. Institutional liberals like Volker Rittberger, O. R. Young and Robert Keohane hold the view that international institutions help to reduce the possibilities of anarchy in the world by advancing cooperation based on mutual interests. Thus, for instance, an international institution like the WTO promotes economic interests of nation-states and help in achieving cooperation among countries of the world. This cooperative international order strengthens international peace. The basic idea of republican liberalism is that democracy and international peace are inseparable. Republican liberals like Michael Doyle, B. M. Russett, D. Lake and others believe that democracy ensures peaceful resolution of conflicts. A state where democratic cultures have taken firm root is less prone to violence and conflict, because it can solve its problems through dialogues and negotiations. Therefore, promotion of democracy in the world would ensure lesser violence and a peaceful international order that would be mutually interdependent for common economic and political interests.

This analysis of the liberal position in IR enables us to focus on the salient features of liberal theory in IR and its main protagonists. Box 2.1 highlights the basic assumptions of the liberal theory:

Neo-liberalism

Liberalism is a long historical tradition that continued its journey into the twenty-first century. With the onset of globalization and free trade in the late 1970s, a group of liberal thinkers argued that this new economic trend would have enormous impact on the nation-state and the international order. This group, known as neo-liberal thinkers in IR, emerged after the triumph of the ‘New Right’ in Britain and the United States during the late 1970s and 1980s. Neo-liberals like C. B. Macpherson, T. Friedman, John Rawls, Francis Fukuyama and K. Ohmae argued, in different ways, against the Keynesian philosophy of state intervention in economic life. In an era of globalization, neo-liberal theorists in IR favoured a free play of economic forces, and a minimal role for the state in economic life. They argued that the former theory of laissez faire in trade could not remove the control of the state over economic life without hindrance. With the concept of the ‘welfare state’ gaining popularity after the Second World War, the state came to exercise a constant dominance in socio-economic life. The neo-liberals argued that the triumph of globalization renders the notion of state sovereignty vulnerable as ‘free trade’ introduced the idea of trade without national borders. They believed that globalization can help achieve true internationalism and a peaceful world order about which post–Second World War liberals remained so passionate and optimistic. They wanted a ‘rollback’ of the welfare state and protectionism in economic life, because these practices ultimately kill the enterprise and talent of the individual, and make the society incapable of achieving better results. So, a minimal state is required for economic liberalism, which in turn can pave the way for a cooperative international order based on peace, harmony and safeguard of human rights.

After the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the ‘Socialist Bloc’, the neo-liberal philosophy claimed to have gained more strength. They refer to the Soviet model of state intervention and protectionism in economic life to vindicate their arguments. According to the neo-liberals, state protectionism in economic matters not only affects human enterprise, they bring corruption, nepotism and inefficiency in socio-political life which may prove to be very detrimental to the state and the society. Conversely, economic liberalism of the ‘minimal state’ helps national and world trade to prosper with benefits reaching the grassroot level. Organizations like the WTO, APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Community), NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), IMF (International Monetary Fund) and the World Bank, which help to promote free trade among nations, also promote world peace and security by enhancing the economic prosperity of the nation-states and the world. Globalization, represented by free market economy in the domestic sphere linked to international trade, has helped many underdeveloped states to achieve sufficient economic development, which in turn would positively affect socio-political development in these countries, think the neo-liberals. They believe that sufficient cooperation and interdependence among nation-states are possible through globalization. In the twenty-first century, it is not possible, and hence desirable, for any nation to isolate itself from world trade, and fully control its internal economic life. The neo-liberal view is not beyond criticism. It is discussed later in the chapter. In Box 2.2, we turn our attention to the basic assumptions of the neo-liberal theory in IR.

Pluralist Theory

Pluralist theory in IR is a branch of the broader liberal theory. As the name suggests, this theory holds the view that in IR, individuals, groups, associations, institutions and organizations also play important roles apart from the state. In other words, this theory believes that every society is plural in nature, and the state is one among many institutions in the society. So, it is unwise to identify the state as the only important actor in IR; other organizations and institutions play vital roles in IR today.

The diversification of liberal theory into sociological, institutional and interdependence liberalism actually upholds the views of the pluralists. These branches of liberalism minimize the excessive importance of the state in IR, and suggest that non-state actors are also very significant in IR today. Therefore, before identifying the general characteristics of the pluralist theory, it would be pertinent to know about these three branches (sociological, institutional and interdependence) of liberalism that form the core of the pluralist theory. The basic idea of sociological liberalism refers to IR as the study of relations among individuals, groups and societies, in addition to the study of interactions among national governments. Pluralists like R. Little, D. Nicholls and J. Burton agree with the theorists of sociological liberalism, and view IR as the study of ‘informal’ relations among individuals, groups, associations and societies beyond the more ‘formal’ relations between governments of different nation-states.

Institutional liberalism holds the view that international institutions like the UNO, WTO, NATO and EU help promote cooperation among states in the world and strengthen efforts for international peace. Pluralists like Krasner, Young and Underdal subscribe to this view of institutional liberals and add multinational corporations (MNCs) and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to their list of non-state actors who play significant roles in IR today. Like the lnstitutional liberals, these pluralists also believe that international institutions, MNCs and NGOs help to reduce the possibilities of state-sponsored anarchy in the world by advancing cooperation based on mutual interests. Sometimes, activities of an international organization and an NGO may be pursued for the same end. Thus, while an international organization like the UNO promotes international peace by thwarting the evil designs of a country, an NGO like the Amnesty International helps in curbing excesses of the national governments and restoring human rights in the world, and through such activities, promotes the cause of international peace. Without adequate safeguard of human rights, international peace and security it is difficult to achieve in the modern world. Institutions and organizations beyond the state are engaged in promoting, knowingly or unknowingly, international peace and harmony, and getting increasing importance in international affairs. The pluralists provide theoretical support to these institutions, associations, groups and organizations in IR today. Interdependence liberalism believes that modern states are welfare organizations and not security organizations. The primary goal of these welfare states is to secure a cooperative international order based on mutual understanding. Pluralists like Rosecrance and Hoffmann believe that in this international order, it is not sufficient to engage the nation-states only; the involvement of non-state actors must be secured to make the world truly friendly, cooperative and peaceful. Non-state actors are important instruments of the present cooperative international order which is highly interdependent in nature.

Pluralists are against the monopoly of the state as an actor in international affairs. In all modern societies, plural forces for socio-political and economic activities are in existence, and working alongside the state. These bodies are not contrary, but complimentary, to the state. They are engaged in socio-political-economic development within the state. Some of these non-state actors are working outside the boundaries of the state on a global scale. They are engaged in different activities that ultimately help in securing international cooperation and harmony. The UNO has also recognized the role of the NGOs in developmental activities throughout the world. Pluralists believe that the contribution of these non-state actors in IR must be properly recognized, and given due importance. The recognition of non-state actors in IR would not only help in establishing a cooperative world, it would also curb the dangers of state-dominated international affairs.

This analysis of the pluralist theory helps us to identify some general characteristics of the theory. Box 2.3 highlights the features of the theory and the leading advocates of this theory.

An Evaluation of Liberal Theory (including Pluralism)

Some of the major attacks on liberal theory in IR came from the realist thinkers. They criticized liberal optimism about a peaceful, cooperative world. Realists like E. H. Carr, Hans J. Morgenthau, George Kennan and Arnold Wolfers saw the views of the liberals as ‘idealistic’ and accused them of misreading the actual situation prevailing in world politics, and nurturing false dreams about the world. According to Carr, there is little rationale to believe that nation-states wish to live in harmony and peace. On the contrary, conflict of interests of the nation-states is the reality in international politics. Nation-states do not cooperate in world politics because their opposing interests would leave limited options for them to search for peace and harmony. Clash of interests actually lead the nations to war. The two world wars bear testimony to this observation, think the realists. Carr, in his book The Twenty Years Crisis, noted that profound conflict of interests between countries and people occur almost always in international politics. For instance, the developed nations, for their economic and political advantages, would prefer to continue with the prevalent international order; whereas the poor nations, due to their disadvantageous position in the international system would try to alter the system. This and many other clashes of interests may lead to frequent conflicts in the world. Liberals are thus wrong in suggesting that nations try to share mutual interests and live in peace and harmony. The reality is different in international politics: it is conflict rather than cooperation among countries.

Hans J. Morgenthau, in his celebrated work Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, shattered the liberal ‘myth’ of a peaceful, interdependent, cooperative world based on democratic values. He started with a portrayal of human nature as self-seeking and self-interested. These selfish human beings cannot change their basic human nature as rulers of the state. As a consequence, the state also looks after its own interests, and does not care for others’ interests in international politics. Morgenthau does not find anything wrong in this attitude of the state. The main tasks of a country are to safeguard its own interests, loosely termed as national interests, and to provide security to its people. In these tasks, the rulers of the state cannot afford to practice morality. Morality can be practiced in the private domain, but not in statecraft. An ordinary individual can practice morality in private life, but the leader of a state cannot afford to go by ethical and moral principles if the interests of the country are at stake. International politics, like domestic politics, is a struggle for power where nations compete, and if required, conflict with one another for supremacy. There is little scope for cooperation, as the liberals suggest, in this international order. According to Morgenthau, ‘interest backed by power’ is the key word in international politics, and countries prefer to follow this policy rather than the policy of peace and harmony.

For realists like Carr, Morgenthau and Wolfers, the state is the most important actor in international politics. They oppose the pluralist view that individuals, groups, associations or institutions play significant roles in IR. World politics is essentially a game for the nation-states, who remain in a controlling position in international affairs. Further, neo-realists like Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer oppose the pluralist view that institutions play important roles in IR. Institutions are not important in their own right; they acquire importance because nation-states either work through them or seek their assistance. Nation-states use the institutions to fulfill their own interests. The state is the main actor, and the institutions are the less-important players in IR. The pluralist view of interdependence among modern states is also contested by neo-realists. Neo-realists argue that within this apparent interdependence, a power game is involved. Advanced and powerful countries of the world create an atmosphere of interdependence to serve their political, economic and strategic interests. Every strong power in history would create this condition to fulfill its interests. That way, history is seldom changed, according to the realists; all history is the history of anarchy due to the politics of power and interest, played by nation-states.

Marxists—from Karl Marx and Frederick Engels to neo-Marxists, to thinkers influenced by the Marxist ideology, such as the World System theorists—have criticized the liberal theory in IR on several grounds. A general Marxist critique propagated by Marx himself and his friend Engels, and also by the neo-Marxists, points out flaws in the liberal idea of democracy and peace in IR. The idea of democracy advanced by the liberal thinkers was the bourgeois idea of democracy that only protected the interests of the bourgeois class. Similarly, the idea of peace in IR was mooted to maintain the existing status quo in the international order, controlled by the capitalists. The neo-Marxists also criticize liberal views on globalization and human rights. Globalization is not the panacea to all economic problems of the poor countries, because it would create economic inequality through capital outflow that would be controlled by the rich nations. Therefore, globalization would bring with it more economic and social disparity by widening the gap between the poor and the rich countries. Human rights, according to neo-Marxists, is nothing but the idea of bourgeois freedom, and it does not take into account the rights and freedoms of the toiling masses of the world. Further, protagonists of the World System Theory (WST) such as Immanuel Wallerstein, Andre Gunder Frank and Samir Amin believe that in the present international order there is a big gap between the rich industrial nations, whom they called the ‘core’ states, and the deprived poor states, identified as the ‘peripheral’ states. Globalization and the resulting economic disparity were behind this ‘core–periphery’ difference system where the core dominates and exploits the periphery in the current international order.

The liberals react differently to these criticisms. A group of ‘weak’ liberals, as identified by Jackson and Sorensen, accept many of the criticisms, and believe that the current state of IR needs changes and rich–poor disparity must be minimized. However, a ‘strong’ group of liberals, identified by Jackson and Sorensen, counterattack the critics by saying that the present state of IR reflects liberal optimism, as more nations are favouring an international order based on democracy, peace and interdependence. The pessimism of the realists and the Marxists, argue the strong liberals, has been rejected by the people in different parts of the world as they shared liberal optimism of a peaceful and cooperative international order based on the protection of democracy and human rights.

Realist Theory

The tradition of realism is rooted in the writings of many ancient scholars. The classical realists believed that there was no permanent solution to the problems of national and international politics. Among them, Greek historian Thucydides is perhaps the oldest. While writing on the Peloponnesian War (431 BC–404 BC), he focused upon the conflicts and competitions among the Greek city-states. According to him, the states were unequal in terms of power. All states have to accept this reality of unequal power and act accordingly. If the states follow this ‘reality’ they will survive and prosper. He said that ‘the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept’. In order to survive, a state has to apply the ethics of caution and prudence, foresight and judgment.

The Italian realist writer Niccolo Machiavelli urged rulers to be shrewd and ruthless. As the world was anarchic in nature, and a dangerous place to live, a ruler had to be brave like a lion and cunning like a fox. According to him, the survival of a state, preservation of its territorial integrity and political independence, and the welfare of its people depended largely on the manipulative powers of the ruler. Thomas Hobbes, the English political philosopher, talked about the ‘state of nature’ where government was absent. In this state of nature there was no rule of law. The fear of the people about getting hurt or killed forced them to unite and form a sovereign state. The sovereign state provided safety and security to its people, and defended itself from external attack. A government was thus necessary within a society in order to provide rule of law and security to the people against violence. But in the international sphere, the multiplicity of sovereign states might result in a state of anarchy that could endanger international security. Hobbes believed that even if war was the last resort for the resolution of an international conflict, such conflicts could be moderated through the enforcement of an international law. So an international law had to be framed by the sovereign states collectively, and its strict adherence was necessary for the states to survive and prosper.

Classical realists were of the opinion that people lived in a condition of total insecurity and lawlessness. This situation was altered by a powerful sovereign state with a strong government. However, in domestic politics as well as in international affairs, the problem of conflicts could not be solved permanently. Realists viewed conflicts and violence as integral parts of domestic and world politics. The ruler needs to be powerful to resolve conflicts in politics. The classical realists emphasized the primary value of power in statecraft. The concern for power of the ruler characterized classical realism. This belief in power was again reflected and reinforced in the writings of neo-classical realists of the twentieth century, such as E. H. Carr and Hans J. Morgenthau.

E. H. Carr’s book The Twenty Years Crisis (1939) provided a scathing criticism of the liberal kind of ‘utopian’ politics. Carr denounced the liberal idea of abolishing war in international politics. According to him, conflicts between states were inevitable in international politics, because there was no international regulatory authority to curb conflicts and wars. We may wish to abolish wars between states, but wars will continue to be fought due to opposing interests of states, and the absence of any regulatory authority in the international system. Carr believed that ‘power’, not ‘morality’ would be the guiding force in international politics.

Morgenthau’s realist theory rests upon the assumption that people are by nature self-interested and power-hungry. In his book Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (1972), Morgenthau wrote that humans by nature were political animals and they enjoyed power. The element of power can secure an individual’s position in the society, and can place him in an advantageous position in comparison to others. Like the classical realists, Morgenthau also believed that ‘politics is a struggle for power’. As political groups compete with one another to enjoy the fruits of power in domestic politics, similarly in international politics, states compete and fight for power. In international politics, the state must pursue power, because it is the only means for the furtherance of national interest. But, as did Thucydides and Hobbes, Morgenthau too argued that the state system creates international anarchy. He believes that the preservation of international peace and stability is possible only by individual states in the absence of any integrated world society. Here he defends the craving for power by individual states and tries to legitimize this urge for power in terms of morality and ethics. According to him, morality has two sides—private and public. He assigns one type of morality for the private sphere and an entirely different type of morality for the public sphere. Individuals in the private sphere can observe moral practices as much as they like, but a state cannot afford to preach morality if the safety and security of its people are in danger. In times of acute crisis, it may become imperative for a state to adopt certain means like spying or conspiring or waging full-scale war for ensuring the security of its people. Such an act may appear to be contradictory to private morality. Morgenthau urges scholars to separate political ethics from private ethics. An individual may not like war, but the leader of the state can never swear to not going to war if the interests of the people and the state are at stake. Let us analyse this distinction between private and public morality, as seen by Morgenthau, in more simple terms. Let us suppose ‘B’, the individual, does not like conflicts. As an individual, he can remain very faithful to this ethics, and may not hit or hurt others. But if ‘B’ assumes leadership of his nation, he cannot remain faithful to his ‘ethics’ of disliking conflicts. If the interests of his nation and people are harmed, he would have to involve himself in conflict or war to secure the interests of his nation and people. Political ethics on the one hand involves foresight, prudence, wisdom, courage, judgment; on the other, it involves cunning, maneuverability and shrewd diplomacy.

In order to understand Morgenthau’s version of realism, it is necessary to know his ‘six principles of political realism’ as presented in Politics among Nations. These principles are as follows.

1. The law of politics is rooted in human nature which is self-seeking, self-interested and power-loving. This human nature has remained unchanged since ancient times.
2. Politics is ‘an autonomous sphere of action’. It is different from economics, ethics, religion or aesthetics. The concept of ‘interest defined in terms of power’ makes politics autonomous because the concept of ‘power’ can help to analyse all politics adequately.
3. Interests of different states may vary from time to time. It is wrong to believe that the meaning and definition of interest is unaffected by the circumstances of time and space. The political and cultural environment determines the nature of interests of a state. This changing reality has to be recognized by all.
4. There is a sharp difference between private morality and political ethics. A leader has to judge a political situation in the light of actual circumstances. Ethics in international politics is political or situational ethics, and therefore sharply opposed to private morality. Application of individual moral judgment is not possible for a leader. He has to take necessary steps considering wider political responsibilities. As a citizen, a person’s action might be influenced by private morality, but the moment he acts as a leader, he has to follow political morality with prudence, taking into account the actual situation.
5. Political realism believes that aspirations of a particular state cannot become the governing law of the universe. This would amount to the imposition of a state’s beliefs upon another. Such a situation is dangerous as it would undermine international peace and security. This might ultimately lead to the destruction of human civilization.
6. Statecraft is a sober and uninspiring activity that involves a profound awareness of human limitations. Human nature as it is should be considered in international politics, rather than human nature as it should be.

Box 2.4 highlights Morgenthau’s six principles of political realism.

The impact of behaviouralism and positivist philosophy in social sciences resulted in the emergence of a new line of realist thought during the 1960s and 1970s. Thomas Schelling, for example, came up with a newer version of realism, later identified as strategic realism. This could be considered as a part of neo-realism, which wanted to analyse international politics from an empirical point of view, making a departure from the normative tone of classical and neo-classical realism. To the classical and neo-classical realists, interest and power became ‘norms’ in both domestic and international politics. They believed that by analysing these concepts, all aspects of domestic and international politics could be studied adequately. Keeping the normative aspects of earlier forms of realism in the background, strategic realism tends to emphasize on empirical analytical tools for strategic thoughts.

Thomas Schelling, the chief exponent of strategic realism, is well aware about the crisis-ridden contemporary world. In order to avoid disaster, he talks about various mechanisms like strategies, moves and calculated actions to be followed by statesmen. For instance, a good strategy suggests that a state uses power intelligently, and not blatantly, while formulating a foreign policy, to avoid any catastrophe. Schelling is not bothered with the questions ‘what is good?’ or ‘what is right?’; he is concerned more with the elements required for the success of a foreign policy. The crucial instrument for the success of a foreign policy is the military. It is a coercive apparatus that can scare an adversary. Coercion can force an adversary into bargaining. For Schelling, diplomacy is all about bargaining. War no longer remains a contest of strength in today’s world of nuclear arsenals. Currently the ‘threat’ of war is more fearsome than actual war. Therefore, the ‘threat’ perspective is more important to him than the real war; and intelligent strategies require very calculative use of this threat perspective in foreign policy. Although Schelling justified intelligent strategies to be adopted by foreign policy-makers, he failed to analyse the role of values in such strategies.

Among contemporary neo-realist thinkers, Kenneth Waltz is particularly important. In his important work, Theory of International Politics, written in 1979, Waltz argued that to study IR one should begin with the system—the state or other political system—and ultimately come down to the individual actors. This is in opposition to the traditional realists’ approach, whose basic premise was the individual human nature. For the neo-realists, the structure of the system and its relative distribution of power are the focal points of analysis. For instance, Kenneth Waltz places great importance on the structure of the system, on its interacting units, and on the changes occurring within the system. He sees the system and its structures as more important than individuals. Waltz’s version of neo-realism is identified as the ‘neo-realist systems theory’ with emphasis on scientific analysis.

According to Waltz, all states are similar in their functional aspects, as all perform similar tasks such as promoting citizens’ welfare, collecting taxes, formulating foreign policies and maintaining internal peace. What makes a state strikingly different from others is not its culture or constitution or ideology; it is rather the varying capabilities of the states that make them different from each other. Therefore, those states which are more ‘capable’ than others would control international politics. What naturally follows is that the great powers are the determining factors in the international political system. After the Second World War, the United States and the Soviet Union, two big and powerful nations, controlled international politics. The bipolarity that developed after the war was more stable than the multi-polar nature of world politics that existed before it. During the bipolar period, the two superpowers were very keen on maintaining the system, because the system provided them with more advantages. According to neo-realists, leaders cannot act independent of the structures of the state. Conducting of foreign policy becomes essentially a mechanical and obvious task for leaders. They are compelled to operate within the confinements of the structures of the political system. While the focal point of strategic realism is the art of diplomacy and prudent strategies, neo-realism is more concerned with structure that dictates and determines policies. However, Waltz also stressed upon the notions of state sovereignty and national interest. But unlike neo-classical realists, Waltz does not see national interest as the core issue in international politics; for him, it acts as a guide to tell the statesman when and where to proceed. In other words, a statesman would have to depend on the structures of the state to formulate foreign policies; but in the making of foreign policy, national interest would guide him how to proceed. Therefore, according to neo-realism, there is no room for wisdom, intelligence, experience or astuteness of the decision-maker. What determines the behaviour of the state is the structure as a whole.

Contemporary economic and technological advancement have posed a challenge to realist thinking. Globalization, increasing privatization of state-owned enterprises, foreign investment, increasing significance of non-state actors, and the growth and importance of civil society have questioned the validity of the realist theory which views the state as the most important unit in international politics. What are the neo-realist responses to these challenges? Neo-realists like Kenneth Waltz, Stephen Krasner, Robert Gilpin and John Mearsheimer have provided answers to these challenges. From their writings, a few common responses to these ‘crises’ could be deciphered. First, neo-realists are sceptical about the impact of globalization throughout the world. They believe that globalization is a typically ‘Western’ concept, and its impact is limited to the developing nations of Asia, Africa and Latin America. Globalization, therefore, would not be a serious threat to nation-states and their interplay in IR. Secondly, neo-realists consider economic interdependence of the world as a myth. If capital flows are measured as a percentage of the GNP (Gross National Product), the level of economic interdependence in the world in 2000 is more or less equal to that of 1910. So, the neo-liberal claim that economic interdependence of the world has made the nation-state a minor player in international affairs is not tenable.

Thirdly, the neo-realists believe that both ‘socialist’ and ‘market’ economic models have produced very satisfactory growth rates. Soviet Union of the 1950s and Japan of the 1980s are good examples of this argument. The neo-liberal claim that only free market economy can achieve sustained growth is also not true. Fourthly, the nation-state is still the most preferred political unit in international affairs, and despite anti-statism, there is no strong rival to challenge and replace the state in IR. The nation-state still commands allegiance of the people and successfully manages conflicts to give its citizens a secured and peaceful life. The notion of state sovereignty, as Krasner (1999) points out, has not become wholly vulnerable to globalization. Finally, neo-realists think that military power is still the determining factor in international politics. Waltz’s notion of ‘capability’ of a state rests on its military power. The more capable military power would remain in the controller’s position in international politics. During the bipolar period, the United States and the Soviet Union were examples of this proposition. Today, the United States and China may be cited as examples of ‘capable’ states due to their military power. After identifying the major arguments of different schools of realism (classical, neo-classical, neo-realism), Box 2.5 summarizes the important characteristics of different trends of realism.

An Evaluation of Realist Theory

Classical and neoclassical theories of realism were criticized by the liberals and the feminists for their narrow and partial views. For classical and neo-classical realists, power seems to be the only important element in international politics. This makes the theory very narrow and partial. It reduces other aspects of politics such as cooperation, peoples’ freedom, nature of the government, values and beliefs of the people, and motivation of the leaders to a negligible level. Again, while highlighting the selfish and evil nature of man, the realists were discarding the human instinct of love and affection. This is only a partial view of reality. Critics argue that realism is a narrowly focused theory. The international scenario does not only reflect the collective behaviour of states in conflict. It also shows states sharing common interests, observing common rules and cooperating in a mutually dependent world. Besides states, there are other significant actors in the global society, such as NGOs, MNCs and INGOs, which are not taken into account by the realists.

Emancipatory theorists—who believe in the social emancipation of people—like Ken Booth and Andrew Linklater, criticize realism as an obsolete theory. They believe that power politics and defence strategies are no longer relevant in the contemporary world. Today security has become a local problem within disorganized, and sometimes failed, states. The scope and character of security has also changed. Security needs to be provided to the global community as a whole against threats such as ecological disaster, poverty, illiteracy, poor education and health facilities. The main thrust of the emancipatory theorists is not on physical security of the people, but on the more general and global problems.

The neo-realist ideas have also been countered by the neo-liberals and the constructivists. Schelling’s strategic realism has come under attack from the constructivists. No strategy, however prudent, can be free from normative values. Emphasis on value-free strategies is as dangerous as emphasis on power. Moreover, Waltz’s love for structures of the system appears to be partial again. It is not that structures only condition humans, it is also the other way round—humans build and change structures of the political system according to their convenience. But Waltz, due to his obsession for structures, failed to notice the immense potentialities of the individual and groups of people.

However, despite criticisms by many schools of thought in IR, realism continues to be an important theory in the discipline because of its emphasis on power and the significance of the state in international politics. Realism will continue to remain relevant as long as the states pursue power and remain the pivotal actors in world politics.

The English School (International Society Approach)

Origin and Intellectual Traditions

IR as an academic discipline was dominated by the Americans for a long time since its beginning around the year 1920. However, a group of scholars based in British universities in general, and London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) in particular, delved into theoretical and practice-oriented issues in IR since the 1950s. With the establishment of the ‘British Committee on the Theory of International Politics (BCTIP)’ in January 1959 by Herbert Butterfield, articulation of views from Britain on the nature of international politics influenced the theoretical domain of IR. Scholars attached to LSE and other British universities and people associated with the BCTIP were also interested to find alternatives to realism and liberalism—the two dominant theories in IR at that point of time (that is, post–Second World War). Scholars such as Charles Manning, Herbert Butterfield, Martin Wight, Hedley Bull, Adam Watson, R. J. Vincent and others worked hard to develop an alternative approach to analyse international politics. Gradually these scholars came to be known as the English School in IR. Their views, although diverse, were termed in different ways, like the English School Theory in IR or the International Society Approach in IR, or liberal realism. But in this analysis, with a view to minimize confusion, the name English School Theory (EST) would be used.

The nature of international politics always attracted the attention of scholars. Is the nature of international politics conflict-prone, as claimed by the realists, or is it based on cooperation, as the liberals wanted us to believe? Theorists belonging to the English School tried to analyse the nature of international politics, taking cues from both realism and liberalism. This attempt at incorporating tenets from both realism and liberalism led the EST to be termed also as liberal realism. The English School does not discard realist postulates like states interacting in an anarchic international system, but combines that realist understanding with the idea of a human element emerging from the domestic sphere. The classical English school starts with the realist assumption of an international system that forms as soon as two or more states have a sufficient amount of interactions. In such interactions, anarchy may persist and form the core of enquiry in the process of analysing IR. But despite the existence of anarchy, states also form a society at the international level and develop rules to restrain conflict, with an urge to sustain this society of states.

There are three distinct philosophical traditions that influenced English School theorists in their attempt to analyse international politics. Martin Wight, a classical English School thinker, referred to these three traditions as realism, rationalism and revolutionism, represented by Machiavelli, Grotius and Kant, respectively. Wight believed that these three always operated simultaneously at the international level. Martin Wight and Barry Buzan, a leading protagonist of the EST in the later stages, identified these elements as first, the international system; second, international society; and third, world society. Buzan called these as English School’s triad, based on Martin Wight’s three traditions of the English School. Idea about these three will help to understand the EST in a significant way. According to Buzan, international system refers to an interaction of states for power. This struggle for power may lead to a conflictual nature of international system as envisaged by Niccolo Machiavelli (1469–1527), and later, by Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679). It puts international anarchy as the centre of IR theory and argues that states in the international system fights for power and supremacy. Therefore, international system, as advocated by the realists, also puts states as most important actor in international politics. Thus, international politics is anarchic in nature due to the conflict of states for power. This conflictual nature of international politics leads to an international system based on anarchy.

The second element, according to Barry Buzan, is international society that thrives on institutionalization of shared interests among states. Hugo Grotius (1583–1645) advocated about the nature of international politics as shared norms and institutions among states. This view was revived by the English School theorists. According to these theorists, shared interest and identity among states form the basis of international society. For the English School, rationalism rather than realism lies at the centre of IR theory. Rationalism puts the creation and maintenance of shared norms, rules and institutions as essential features of international society. Therefore, cooperation among states through shared norms, institutions and rules is also an important element of international politics, apart from the notion of an anarchic system. English School theorists prefer to call this coexistence of states (through shared interests) in international politics as international society.

Barry Buzan (2001) identifies the third element in international politics as world society, composed of non-state actors, individuals and the overall global population as a part of international arrangements. In simple words, the state is not the most important actor in international politics, as the realists believe; non-state actors and human beings, as an individual and a global community, are also important. This position was taken by Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) earlier, and English School theorists revived this Kantian logic (also identified as revolutionism) to analyse international politics. In the world society, the nature of international politics is confined not only to interaction among states (for power), but also to interaction among non-state actors and identities. Even, transcendence of the state into a transnational or global phenomenon is possible in a world society. This transnationalism (or revolutionism) forms the centre of IR theory. However, Buzan believed that this Kantian position was not developed enough by the English School scholars into sound conceptual clarifications.

Therefore, following Martin Wight’s classification (which was later emphasized by Barry Buzan), the triad of English School tradition consists of realism (represented by Machiavelli), rationalism (represented by Grotius) and revolutionism (represented by Kant). Later, Wight added Giuseppe Mazzini (1805–72), a leading thinker of revolutionary nationalism, to his triad to make it a four-fold pillar of scholarly tradition for the English School (Wight and Porter, 2005). However, the English School followed Hugo Grotius and his ideas of international society more than the other three traditions. But in the EST, one may find a combination of all traditions. The EST believes that there is a society of sovereign states at the international level despite the existence of anarchy, and this society follows a set of rules to restrain conflict.

Major Arguments

The position of the EST that there is a society of sovereign states bound by a set of rules despite the existence of anarchy, raises a few questions. How is it possible for the world to be anarchical and social at the same time? How is it possible for the sovereign states to be governed by a set of rules, known as international law? Post-classical English School theorist Hidemi Suganami raised these questions. Suganami attempted to find answers to these crucial questions from the writings of classical English School scholars such as C. A. W. Manning and Hedley Bull (Suganami, 2010). Both Manning and Bull acknowledged the fact that the world contained many entities other than states, which are not the only actors in international politics. All these different entities together form some sort of social system that exhibits complex interactions. However, Manning and Bull did not go much into this complex social system comprising different entities. Their interest was fixed on the formal structure of this international social order, which they viewed as an international society of sovereign states governed by international law (Suganami, 2010). Both Manning and Bull tried to analyse an international society of independent sovereign states, bound by international law. These states communicated among themselves through the institution of diplomacy.

But how a complex international social order of sovereign states is possible, alongside the existence of anarchy? Hedley Bull believes that states are not as vulnerable to anarchy as an individual human being is. For Bull (1977), anarchy has three meanings: absence of rule, disorder and confusion. For an individual, it is difficult to survive anarchy because all three notions of anarchy may follow one after another and threaten his/her existence. However, in the international society, the absence of rule may not be necessarily followed by disorder and confusion. Through the institution of diplomacy, states may diffuse disorder and confusion, if there is any absence of rule. But an individual human being may not be in a position to avoid disorder and confusion. Therefore, states are in a position to survive reasonably well without the kind of protection normally given to an individual within the boundaries of the state. Anarchy entails different connotations for an individual and for the international society. In the international society of sovereign states, anarchy is restrained through institutional arrangements such as diplomacy and a set of rules formed by states. These rules are termed as international law. As a consequence, an international society of sovereign states survives despite the existence of anarchy.

The next important puzzle before the English School theorists was to solve the issue of sovereign states governed by international law. To answer this puzzle, classical English theorists delved deep into the meaning and nature of sovereignty, especially at the international level. They made sharp distinctions in the meaning of sovereignty, as applicable to domestic and international politics. Manning and James believe that a state remains a sovereign state regardless of its international legal obligation so far as it does not become incorporated into another sovereign state (Suganami, 2010). At the international level, a state enters into treaties and legal obligations for various purposes. Sometimes a state enters into treaties and legal obligations to further its national interests. At other times, it may join any legal treaty or contract to help the world and its people to survive. International legal frameworks on environment or human rights may be cited as examples here. When a sovereign state enters into any international legal obligation, for the safeguard of its national interest or for the security of the existing world order, it does so as an independent state, without surrendering its sovereignty. In an international society of independent states, such legal obligations are important and necessary for the survival of the state concerned as well as of the world order. Here, a sovereign state adheres to international law willingly without surrendering its power to decide its own course of action. According to Manning and James, a sovereign state remains sovereign and independent in the international society of states till it is incorporated into another state. Sovereignty therefore is not a hindrance in accepting international law, in fact, adherence to international law may help a sovereign state to further its national interest and promote a sustainable international society.

Pluralist and Solidarist Divide in the English School

Over the issues of international society and its activities, the English School is divided between a pluralist and a solidarist approach. Scholars such as Hedley Bull were apprehensive about realistic achievements of a society of states working in solidarity to uphold human rights or distributive justice for all in the world. In simple words, Bull believed that the international society of states had not become matured enough to work together to ensure human rights and justice for all people. According to Bull, from a realistic point of view, the world is still at a pluralistic stage where states disagree to achieve the so-called ‘higher values’ such as protection of human rights and justice (Bull, 2000). For instance, will all the states in the international society agree to use force against a state accused of violating human rights? A realistic answer at this point of time would be in the negative. Therefore, pluralists such as Bull, Vincent and Jackson believe that states, in reality, follow a ‘live and let live’ approach which should be acknowledged. In a society of sovereign states, not all will think in the same way; plurality and diversity will exist, and that diversity should be respected.

Solidarists, on the other hand, think that the international society must develop a consensus to punish states who fail to protect human rights and distribute justice for all. This is necessary for achieving the goal of a peaceful world order and also to restrain increasing sense of insecurity among people. They prefer humanitarian intervention by the international society against regimes accused of human rights violations or threatening global peace. Contemporary international law does not allow such intervention and use of force for these violations. Solidarists such as Nick Wheeler and others argue that international legal framework must be developed to thwart attempts of states and regimes which violate human rights of people and to ensure justice for all. This is important to achieve a peaceful and developed world where human rights, justice, order, economic and environmental stability would exist. Solidarists among the English School thinkers believe that after the end of the Cold War and superpower rivalry, we should move forward towards achieving an international society that would ensure justice, order, rights, economic progress and environmental protection for all people in the world. This kind of a world would minimize conflicts and help all sovereign states in the international society to live peacefully without insecurity. However, a pluralist like Hedley Bull doubts how much of the solidarist view of a peaceful world order could be achieved in reality.

According to Hidemi Suganami, a leading thinker of the English School, the pluralist–solidarist divide is not an insurmountable one. He thinks that the two sides disagree mainly on what is achievable in the contemporary society of states. Even pluralists would acknowledge, believes Suganami, the fact that there may be some regional groupings of states within which guarantee and protection of human rights may be possible. It may be true that the solidarist view of the international society may have more appeal in the post–Cold War world order looking for inclusive development, the pluralist concern about its feasibility in the contemporary world rests equally on strong foundations (Suganami, 2010). Despite the end of superpower rivalry, the world is still not in a situation where small-scale regional conflicts, or for that matter, largescale conflicts, would be ruled out. Due to divergence of opinion and national interest, conflicts are possible. Ideologically, inclusive development and protection of human rights of all people of the world should be the goal of a post–Cold War world order; but the question remains, how much of this is achievable in reality today.

A Critique of the EST

By taking a middle road between realism and liberalism, the English School helped in theorizing world politics from a balanced point of view, removed from the pessimism of realist theory and unnecessary optimism of the liberal theory. As international politics since the Second World War is not all about continuous conflict or unbroken peace, views of the English School theorists appear reasonable for analysing global politics. Their focus on both state and non-state actors as well as global population and governance has made the EST a very cogent and important theory in IR in recent times. Further, with the end of the Cold War and superpower rivalry, the danger of anarchy permeating world politics has minimized considerably. After the end of the Cold War, the world is looking to protect human security, economic freedom and environmental safeguards for all people of the world. With a view to achieve these goals, English School scholars prefer to resort to a normative approach, that is, adherence to international laws and legal framework. This way, EST revived normative traditions in IR theory making. Sovereign states of the world must come together to frame and follow international law for the protection of human rights, justice, order, economic freedom and environment. In other words, EST paves ways for the formation of international legal regimes to protect human rights and ensure distributive justice. Scholars of the English School keep faith on diplomacy as an instrument of communication among states. Today, international law and diplomacy are important instruments in the international society of sovereign states. Despite limitations, global governance and international regimes are getting increasing importance in global politics. EST does provide credence and strength to these factors in the post–Cold War international order.

However, there is a lack of clarity in EST over issues of international law and diplomacy. Realist thinkers point out factors such as inadequacy and applicability of international law. Although EST points out the significance of international law, the position of the English School on international law has nowhere been properly and adequately set out. Manning and Bull tried hard to analyse why sovereign states would follow international law, but there were flaws in their arguments. Will a sovereign state continue to follow international law if its national interest remains in danger? The answer would be in the negative. This question puts the efficacy of international law and international regimes in crisis. If it is accepted that in the post–Cold War period, sovereign states would cooperate among themselves and follow international legal framework for their economic interests and environmental concerns, they are also prone to violate international rules to safeguard their national interests. Further, as pluralists among English School theorists argue, diverse nature of the international society with divergent views and interests of sovereign states, make it less prone to solidarity in the present time.

Moreover, EST originated and flourished in the Western world where rule of law, state system and the urge for global citizenship have matured over a long period of time. English School thinkers, classical and post-classical, have put forward their arguments keeping in view Western states and their possible mode of interactions and functions. But a vast majority of states in the world and global population are non-Western. State system and views on international law in these regions are far from matured. Will the concept of international society of states get favourable grounds in these regions? EST faces a real challenge in these relatively new states. Enforcing human rights, justice and order from above, by an international society backed by international rule, as the solidarists in English School think, may not work in these regions. Domestic political considerations and matured handling of sensitive political issues are keys to success in these regions. Is the international society, and unclear international laws, matured enough to work for ensuring human rights and justice in the non-Western world? The EST could not provide any satisfactory answer to this crucial question.

Critical Theory in IR

Meaning and Origin

There are four major theoretical traditions in IR, as outlined in the section titled ‘Theories and Methodologies’ in Chapter 1. These are realism, liberalism, English School (international society) theory and post-positivist theories. Critical theory is an important part of post-positivism in IR. While the other three (realism, liberalism and English School) traditions have been analysed in this chapter, this section will proceed to examine the critical theory in IR.

Critical theory has challenged the mainstream understanding of IR and inspired the development of alternative forms of analysis and approaches. While there are many ideas and views about the meaning of the term ‘critical’, basically the term has been used to apply reason and critical insight in relation to the emancipation of human beings. Critical theory is committed to the development of a more just and equal world. It does not merely believe in providing theoretical suggestions for the formation of a just world, it wants socio-political actions for the creation of a more egalitarian world and emancipated human beings. This theory goes beyond theoretical boundaries to provide momentum for actions in challenging, resisting and disrupting existing power relations. Critical theory opposes the neo-realist and neo-liberal views of the world and its development, and tries to provide an alternative approach of analysing international politics. This approach, unlike others in the discipline, began with the help of concepts related to political economy, to analyse world politics.

Critical theory was initially influenced by the ideas of Kant, Hegel and Marx. These philosophers were instrumental in the development of the idea of critique, which to them was challenging the existing discourses and power equations. For Kant, critique was ‘enlightenment’; to Hegel, it was ‘spirit of history’; and to Marx, it was ‘emancipation’ (Yalvac, 2015). However, the influence of Karl Marx on early critical theorists was more pronounced. There is a rich variety of critical theory ranging from normative to structural to post-structural. Despite the existence of different varieties of critical theorizing, all strands were united in their critique of mainstream research agenda, and the positivist interpretation of world politics, questioning the concept of value-free theoretical and political enquiry. In simple words, critical theorists brought back the tradition of normative political interpretation, which was missing in the positivist phase with excessive emphasis on scientific and value-free analysis. As human beings, society and politics are not value-free; theories and related political actions must not be value–free either. Post-positivism does not believe in analysing social and political issues based on excessive and rigorous scientific tools. As an important part of the post-positivist approaches, critical theory reverts back to normative and value-oriented analysis minus excessive scientism.

Critical theory in social sciences owes a lot to the Frankfurt School. In 1923, Frankfurt Institute for Social Research was established; and subsequently it was attached to Frankfurt University in Germany. The institute remained functional till 1933 when the Nazis came to power. Afterwards, it became increasingly difficult for the Frankfurt School to continue working in Germany. Many leading scholars attached to the institute went to the United States, and this institution was established in New York City, affiliated to Columbia University. The term ‘critical theory’ became associated with this institute in the United States. After the end of the Second World War and the end of the Nazi rule, the Frankfurt School was re-established in Germany and it continued to operate there without any hindrance. The institute and its leading scholars, who were pioneers in making critical theory relevant for social sciences, were termed as the Frankfurt School. These scholars were Walter Benjamin (1892–1940), Max Horkheimer (1895–1973), Theodor Adorno (1903–69), Erich Fromm (1900–80), Herbert Marcuse (1898–1979) and Jurgen Habermas (1929–). German intellectual tradition and politics in particular, and European thinkers in general, influenced critical theorists. Apart from Kant, Hegel and Marx, the writings of Weber, Simmel, Nietzsche, Gramsci, Derrida and Foucault influenced different threads of critical scholars. German idealist philosophy and theology, and European psychoanalysis in a broader sense, exerted considerable influence on critical theory.

Major Arguments

Critical theory put the idea of Marxian political economy at the centre of analysis, and early critical theory showed commitment to Marxian views of materialism and socialism. One of the major features of this stance was the belief that a social theory could not accept anything as given or unchangeable. All of social life is a corollary of the economic system; and the role of a social theory was to investigate the ways in which this changed and affected society and its people. A social theory is not only social and political, but a researcher’s task is to examine economic, cultural and value preferences of the individual as well. When Max Horkheimer became director of the Institute for Social Research in 1930, he wanted the institute to carry out multidisciplinary studies cutting across traditional academic disciplines. He viewed critical theory as an approach that would examine all aspects of social life, not merely the structures, but also individual, consciousness and the community. As a consequence, the institute began working with ideas from philosophy, the social sciences, the arts, the humanities and other traditions. Horkheimer was critical of social scientists for eliminating philosophy from their analysis and limiting themselves to the study of specific aspects of social life, without considering the society as a whole with its structures and organizations. At the same time, he was critical of some branches of philosophy for limiting themselves to observable facts and the ‘scientific method’. As a consequence of these critical tradition, early critical theorists did not resist from criticizing Marxism when it was mechanically materialist or too determinist. In other words, critical theorists saw knowledge in its entirety, not in fragments.

Jurgen Habermas was a key figure among critical theorists and his views have influenced critical theory in IR profoundly. Although Habermas never directly referred to international politics (his concern was primarily individual society), his ideas of communicative action, discourse ethics and analysis of the relation between knowledge and human interests have strengthened alternative critical views within IR. The ideas of Habermas centre round radical democratization of society. His belief in the ideals of enlightenment led him to think that universal moral principles can be the basis of resolution of conflicting claims in social and political life. For Habermas, although modernity has achieved technological progress, it has not yet brought freedom, solidarity and emancipation of human beings. Therefore, he wishes to find a path where human freedom and progress can be united again under modern conditions (Yalvac, 2015). He believes that historical materialism, as viewed by Marx, should also be reconstructed in a way to harness the potential for social communication and mutual understanding among people, rather than simply analysing society on the basis of labour and production. Habermas made a move from a philosophy of consciousness to a philosophy of language, making a major shift in Western philosophical tradition. The philosophy of language allows for the communication and understanding of diverse identities and interests. This concept also facilitates a pluralist understanding of social reality. This view brings Habermas closer to many postmodernist thinkers (Yalvac, 2015).

Habermas introduced the idea of a ‘pure communicative sociation’ defined as an ‘ideal speech situation’ in which the actors can freely and truthfully communicate (Habermas, 1984, 1985). In this situation, the ‘force of the better argument’ prevails. Thus, rationality is formulated so that it does not solely imply a universality of norms but a discursive and procedural context of an ideal speech situation. History is re-conceptualized as a collective learning process whereby the species not only acquires technical knowledge for domination of nature but also develops new norms of communication in the moral-practical sphere (Yalvac, 2015).

Habermas links his views on communicative rationality to what he calls knowledge constitutive interests (Habermas, 1972). This refers to the role of knowledge in achieving different forms of social arrangements. He argues that ‘knowledge generated by positivism is not the only type of knowledge oriented to fulfill the needs of social life. Positivism conceives of social problems as technical problems that require technical solutions. However, knowledge of the social world should be based not only on social control but also on communication and human emancipation’ (Yalvac, 2015). Habermas made a distinction among ‘technical cognitive interests’ in which knowledge is seen as the basis for controlling one’s environment; and ‘practical cognitive interests’ that seek to promote inter-subjective communication between different subjects; and ‘emancipatory cognitive interests’, a guiding communication that deals with the conditions of distorted communication and the conditions necessary to achieve autonomy and freedom (Yalvac, 2015). In the post-positivist phase, emancipatory cognitive interests will help human beings in society to harness the potential of autonomy and freedom.

Critical Theory and IR

Since the early 1980s, a group of scholars involved with IR theory addressed new epistemological and normative questions in IR, under the influence of critical theory. Scholars such as Richard Ashley, Robert W. Cox, Andrew Linklater, John Maclean and Mark Hoffman began to argue, in different ways, about the idea of emancipation of people in the world. Under the influence of emancipatory ideas ranging from Kant to Marx to Habermas, the group of IR scholars delved into the possibilities of achieving universal freedom and equality. Mainstream IR theories such as realism and liberalism remained essentially conservative in the sense that these theories wanted to continue with the maintenance of state power. Critical IR theory, on the other hand, sought to develop knowledge that might contribute to the progressive and emancipatory transformation of the international order. This theory wanted to know the historical structures of international power, and how changes could be made in these structures. In simple words, critical theory in IR is not just another scholarly discourse on the maintenance of the state and global power structures, but it was also a concerted attempt to bring changes in these power structures. Critical theory in IR is different from a ‘traditional’ theory (such as realism or liberalism) in terms of a practical purpose. This theory is critical to the extent that it seeks human emancipation, what Horkheimer called, ‘to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them’.

Mark Hoffman, Robert Cox and Andrew Linklater made significant contributions in introducing critical theory to the theoretical domain of IR as an academic discipline. Mark Hoffman’s essay, Critical Theory and the Inter-paradigm Debate (1987), signifies one of the first efforts to introduce arguments of critical theory in the discipline of IR. Hoffman believed that limitations of critical theory must be underlined while presenting it as an important paradigm in the discipline of IR. Andrew Linklater, in his essay The Question of the Next Stage in International Relations Theory (1992), emphasized on the need for ‘emancipatory ideas’ to be included within the realm of IR theory. Human beings deserve to be made equal, free and emancipated domestically as well as internationally, an idea that ‘traditional’ theories such as realism, liberalism and English School failed to comprehend because of their excessive concerns with the state as a seminal actor in global politics. Linklater identified three areas of critical theory in IR: normative, sociological and praxeological. The first two (normative and sociological) spheres refer to the individuals, groups and states; shared moral commitments to international justice and freedom; and to the historical and social structures of the international system. The praxeological sphere refers to human governance, and how human actions are directed towards universal ideals of freedom, equality and justice. Linklater believed that open-ended dialogue between and among citizens enhanced chances for harmony at the international level. Whereas Robert Cox preferred to work with ideas of hegemonic and counter hegemonic discourses, Linklater drew on Habermas’ discourse ethics and theory of historical development to identify the potential of modern states to move beyond the state system in the context of world order.

According to some scholars, critical theory in IR may be classified as per four general positions (Patrascu and Wani, 2015). First, neo-Gramscian works on global political economy and international politics, as reflected in the work of Robert Cox. Second, normative and explanatory theory as inspired by the Frankfurt School in general, and Jurgen Habermas in particular, and reflected in the work of Andrew Linklater. Third, postmodernist work, such as that of Richard Ashley, R. B. J. Walker, James Der Derian and M. Shapiro. Their studies were largely inspired by a range of postmodernist and poststructuralist philosophers, including Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault. Fourth, the feminist work such as that of Jean Elshtain, Cynthia Enloe, Christine Sylvester and Ann Tickner. Feminist scholars were influenced by a very wide range of traditions (including Marxism, the Frankfurt School and postmodernism). All these strands, although diverse in perceptions, have a common element: critical in approach and analysis.

Arguments put forward by critical theorists such as Andrew Linklater help to identify, according to scholars (Patrascu and Wani, 2015), a few contributions of critical theory in the realm of IR as listed here:

1. Critical theory in IR contests the methodology of ‘positivism’ and wants to bring back normative traditions in analysis, theory and activism.
2. It opposes the idea that the existing social structures of the world are immutable and tries to examine the prospects for greater freedom inherent within existing social relations.
3. It endeavours to overcome the flaws in Marxism by emphasizing forms of social learning, following Habermas’ reconstruction of historical materialism. This is done in conformity with ‘emancipatory’ ideas.
4. The theory advances ideas of open discourse not only between fellow citizens but also between all members of the human race, with enlightenment and universalism as guiding principles.

Robert Cox believes that there are major differences between critical theory in IR and traditional theories in the discipline. He prefers to call traditional theories, such as realism and liberalism, problem-solving theories. Problem-solving theories have two main characteristics: first, a positivist methodology; and second, providing legitimacy to existing social and political structures. By contrast, as Richard Devetak points out, ‘critical international theory starts from the conviction that cognitive processes themselves are subject to political interests and so ought to be critically evaluated. Theories of international relations, like any knowledge, necessarily are conditioned by social, cultural and ideological influence, and one of the main tasks of critical theory is to reveal the effect of this conditioning’ (Devetak, 2001). In simple words, critical theorists believe that our knowledge is influenced by political, social and cultural interests; and critical theory in IR tries to unearth these influences. In this endeavour, critical theory in IR prefers a post-positivist methodology.

A Critique of the Critical Theory in IR

Critical theory in IR has added strength to the discipline in many ways. Following Habermas, critical theorists in IR have placed emphasis on ‘emancipatory cognitive interests’, which refers to conditions necessary to achieve autonomy and freedom of human beings. In the post-positivist phase, ‘emancipatory cognitive interests’ will help individuals harness the potential of autonomy and freedom. In other words, critical theorists wanted to see knowledge as impetus for activism for creating a world where justice, equality and freedom for all human beings prevails. Critical theory wants a closer relationship between new understanding in knowledge and political actions to use the new understanding for changing the existing world order. Any contribution that academic discourses could make to change the world would be through adopting the attitude of critique—by posing constant challenges to earlier narratives, and the power relations they project. Critical theory introduced this important element of constructive academic critique to the discipline of IR. Therefore, theoretical understanding has become more matured and relevant for our knowledge of the contemporary world, and ways to change it. Many issues of contemporary importance, such as identity politics, global economic processes and terrorism, could not be understood adequately with earlier theoretical resources available within the discipline. Critical theory has enabled scholars to develop a more matured understanding of the historical development of the world and its complex social processes.

These theoretical strengths notwithstanding, critical theory in IR has been subjected to many criticisms. One major critique against critical theory is its euro-centric and Western-centric bias. Like other major theories in the discipline (realism, liberalism, English School), critical theory was predominantly European and Western. Seen from this perspective, it offered nothing new. J. M. Hobson believes that even when it is critical of the West and Western imperialism, most Marxist analyses of IR, discourses on political economy and neo-Gramscian approaches suffered from an essentially euro-centric bias (Hobson, 2007). Contemporary world has witnessed the rise of non-Western societies like China, Brazil, South Korea and India. Social and political processes in these countries are different from the Western world. Critical theory, with its euro-centric understanding, would appear inadequate to address human interactions and possibilities of change in these societies. With ideas of development rooted in Western societies, critical theory seems to possess limited understanding of the development processes and their critique in non-Western societies. Thus, critical theory appears less inclusive, like other West-oriented theories, in covering socio-political processes in the postcolonial and developing world.

Further, critical theory failed to provide a definitive answer as to how emancipation of human beings would be achieved. There were many divergent views among critical theorists on the issue of relationship between understanding the world and ways to change it. Critical scholars appeared directionless about achieving a free and fair world, based on freedom, equality and justice for all, although they referred to these issues frequently. On the question of human emancipation, there were differences among normative, neo-Gramscian and post-structuralist views within the critical scholars. Moreover, critical theorists were also unsure about how knowledge could be transformed effectively into activism. Robert Cox candidly agreed that he was better placed to ‘theorize’ the world than to engage in a neo-Gramscian activism to organize a counter-hegemonic block (Cox, 2002), although he was not averse to the creation of this block. Habermas also saw dangers in crossing the limit between a theorist and an activist (Calhoun, 1997). In other words, critical scholars held divergent views about knowledge of the world and ways to change it. They were unsure about crossing limits between academia and active politics.

Feminist strand within critical theory questions masculine domination in the realm of thought in IR. Feminist critical theorists such as Cynthia Enloe, Christine Sylvester and Ann Tickner believe that history and structure of, and knowledge about, IR are all gendered. As observed later in this chapter, feminist scholars of IR have shown how the formation of the state and the ‘international society’ of states have helped the construction of gender differences through divisions such as private/public, state/society and domestic/international. Although critical about traditional theories in IR, feminist perceptions about social and political processes of the world and its possible changes differ from the normative and neo-Gramscian scholars within the critical realm of thought.

Despite all such divergent views about knowledge, human emancipation, state and non-state actors, communication and activism, critical theory was able to raise many vital questions about theories and methodologies in the discipline of IR. It proved successful in igniting the now famous ‘fourth debate’ in the discipline of IR, surrounding post-positivist ways of thinking, to analyse and change our contemporary world.

Marxist Theory in IR

The Marxist theory in IR would be difficult to understand without a basic idea of Marxism. Broadly speaking, the writings of Karl Marx and his friend Frederick Engels constitute the basic premises of Marxism. Later on, the views of socialist leaders like Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zhe Dong and several academicians and scholars were added to the Marxist political philosophy. The neo-Marxists have also added fresh dimensions to Marxist ideology to make it academically more rich, time-worthy and relevant in today’s world. The following are a few basic tenets of Marxist political philosophy, as developed by Marx and Engels.

1. The Marxist idea of dialectical materialism holds the view that change is inevitable in nature and in society; and changes must be qualitative rather than merely quantitative.
2. The Marxist view of historical materialism argues that in all hitherto existing societies (except primitive communism), there were class divisions among people based on their relations to property and means of production; and changes always took place through class struggles (clash of interests of opposing classes).
3. Classes are mainly economic groupings of people based on their relation to the production process in the society. Thus, those who own the means of production belong to one class, and those who do not belong to another class.
4. Although class divisions existed in all societies except in case of primitive communism, antagonism among classes reached its peak in the capitalist society, which ultimately was divided into two classes: the capitalists (the owning class) and the proletariat (the non-owning class).
5. Excessive production and profit motive of the capitalists led to severe exploitation of the proletariat in the capitalist society. Unable to bear with such extreme form of exploitation, the proletariat consolidates as a class on the basis of economic, political and ideological similarities, and wages a class struggle against the capitalists. In this class struggle, the proletariat wins and establishes, gradually, the socialist society which is free of classes and class divisions.
6. The state was created by the owning class to safeguard its interests and to oppress the non-owning class through different mechanisms, such as the police. Therefore the state, in Marxist view, served the interests of the owning class and became a tool for oppression. When class division ends in the socialist society, the state will have no role to play in the society, and therefore, will ‘wither away’.
7. Proletariats all over the world are exploited, and therefore share common interests. They are not bound by national borders or national interests, because their agony everywhere in the world is the same—they are exploited to the tilt by the capitalists. The proletarian revolution is, therefore, international in character.
8. Economic issues in the society constitute the base in Marxist political philosophy; every other aspect, such as politics, culture, education or religion, remain at the super-structural level, dependent on economic factors (the base).

Although the whole gamut of Marxist philosophy is not as simple as presented here, nevertheless these basic ideas would help us to properly understand the Marxist theory of IR.

The Marxist view of the world is determined by the rise of capitalism and its impact on human relations. At a certain stage in the development of history, Marx and Engels observed in their book Communist Manifesto, that capitalism played a progressive role in eradicating the irrational and superstitious feudal system and introducing rational and scientific ways of thinking. Yet, capitalism soon turned into a system that divided people on the basis of ownership of the means of production. The owning class, by means of its economic power, cornered state (political) power to safeguard its interests. With a view to augment production and garner more profit, the capitalists started exploiting the non-owning people by denying them basic economic, social and political freedoms. Through this process of exploitation, capitalism also brought about, unknowingly, solidarity in international working class movement. The rise of capitalism, therefore, was a turning phase in human history and IR, because it gave birth to possibilities of ending existing social relations and generating new ones that would help to create different and new IR.

The Marxist critique of the capitalist system is still much relevant in IR with the onset of globalization, which is viewed as a global movement of capital, goods and labour. It is possible for the rich capitalist states to control this global movement, and dominate in international politics. The liberal and neo-realist critics of Marxism wanted to prove that Marxism had made no contribution to the study of IR, because in the Marxist philosophy state, nationalism and cooperation or conflict among states had little relevance. If IR is primarily concerned with interactions among nation-states, the Marxist philosophy does not fit into it because it does not have any interest in nation-states, their struggle for supremacy, national interests and politics for power among states. But this criticism is not valid because classical and neo-Marxist thinkers proved quite relevant for the study of IR. Classical Marxist thinkers like Lenin and Bukharin developed the theory of imperialism, which they considered as an advanced stage of capitalism. At this stage of development of capitalism, new mercantilist states emerged. These states were willing to use force to achieve their economic and political goals, resulting in further crises in capitalism and estrangement of the proletariat from the capitalist system. Lenin and Bukharin argued that the First World War was the product of a desperate need for new markets for the surplus capital accumulated by the dominant mercantilist states. The tendency of the mercantilist state to find new outlets for its accumulated surplus capital led to a severe struggle among these states that shattered the promise of a peaceful international order, advanced by the liberals. Lenin’s and Bukharin’s views on imperialism—that it would create severe competition, even struggle, among states for markets, and shatter the notion of interdependence and peace among nations—thus served as a critique of the liberal position. Their study of imperialism also strengthened Marx’s original proposition that developed capitalism would face increasing internal crises.

Contemporary Marxists have largely drawn from their classical comrades to build their ideas on development and underdevelopment. But they have also made some significant departures from the classical Marxists who believed in the progressive side of capitalism that would facilitate industrial development for all peoples. Dependency theorists, for instance, argued that ‘peripheral’ societies failed to achieve industrial development because of the dominant class interests of the capitalists in the ‘core’ and the ‘periphery’. Underdeveloped peripheral societies must detach themselves from the world capitalist economy to achieve autonomous industrial development. This view is linked to the process of globalization as well, which the liberal thinkers claim would help in achieving unprecedented economic growth. The dependency theorists believe that due to the shared class interests of the capitalists in all parts of the world, globalization would not be able to bring about equal development for all people, and end exploitative tendencies of the ‘core’ over the ‘periphery’. World System theorists like Wallerstein also disagreed with the classical Marxist view in the progressive role of capitalism to bring about industrial development in all parts of the world. But classical- and neo-Marxists share the view that class interests of the capitalists know no boundaries, and these are exploitative and dominant in all parts of the world. These exploitative class interests of the capitalists would create unbridgeable gap between the rich and the poor peoples of the world. The proletariat must rise above national interests to introduce change in this international order, and aim for a class-less society to achieve IR based on equitable relations among people. Present IR are dominated by the interests of the capitalists. This could be ascertained from the fact that capitalists of ‘core’ and ‘peripheral’ societies join hands to exploit the poor people, and to justify the existing international order. Only through the establishment of socialist class-less societies across the world, the present exploitative nature of IR could be changed. For that end, the proletariat of the world, cutting across national boundaries and national interests, would have to unite and struggle for change of the existing international order.

This analysis of the Marxist theory of IR helps us to identify the basic assumptions of the theory. They are presented in Box 2.8.

An Evaluation of Marxist Theory of IR

Major criticisms of the Marxist theory of IR came from the liberals and the neo-realists. The liberals think that with the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Marxist view of IR lost its relevance. The end of the Soviet Union, according to the liberals, marked a triumph of capitalism over socialism, a reality the Marxists failed to comprehend. The present international order has been shaped according to the liberal-democratic ideology which the Marxists termed as capitalist philosophy. Whatever be the terminology, liberal-democratic or capitalist, the fact remains that the present world has never developed according to the Marxist view. With the eclipse of the Soviet Union, the socialist ideology has been declared as non-existent by the liberals.

Neo-realists like Kenneth Waltz have argued that for the proletariat, national identity comes before proletarian internationalism. Waltz believed that during the First World War members of the proletariat found that they had more in common with their own national bourgeoisie than with the proletariat of other states. In every country of Europe, the proletariat demonstrated nationalistic feelings manifested by its support for the state and for war. So, the idea of proletariat internationalism is absurd and based upon utopian premises. This major flaw in Marxism results due to economic reductionism, which identifies that economic interests of classes propel them to transcend national boundaries.

Not all these criticisms appear to be correct. For instance, the disintegration of the Soviet Union did not mark an end to socialism or a triumph of capitalism; it rather revealed the ugly face of party bureaucracy. The Communist Party in the Soviet Union usurped all power and allowed nepotism and corruption to enter into the party. As a consequence, the party was estranged from the people. Capitalist elements took the opportunity to replace a corrupt and weak party. Some contemporary, Western experts of IR—Andrew Linklater, for example—believe that Marxism has not lost its relevance after the end of the Soviet Union, and the onset of globalization. Linklater identified four major contributions of Marxism to the study of IR. First, the materialist analysis of history, and ideas of production, property relations and class, are immensely strong to oppose the realist views which hold that power and national interests constitute the core in international politics. Second, Marxism was concerned with international inequality generated by capitalist globalization. Third, the global spread of capitalist modernity helps in the development process of modern societies and the conduct of their IR. Fourthly, analyses of IR and globalization get a critical outlook from the Marxists. Globalization and international political economy (IPE) are analysed much objectively by the neo-Marxists, who believe that these are not ubiquitously beneficial for people. These views, in effect, strengthen the discussions on globalization and IPE.

It is wrong to assume that Marxism has no relevance in the study of IR. On the contrary, Marxist philosophy has been credited with generating a new series of critical theories in IR which attempt to analyse IR from a new angle distinct from the two main traditional schools of IR theory: the liberal school and the realist school. Marxist interpretation of the development of advanced capitalism proved somewhat right with controversies surrounding the concept of globalization in today’s world.

World System Theory

Some scholars of IR, Marxist in orientation, developed the WST to analyse the postcolonial international order where, according to them, regional class divisions and exploitation exist because of the capitalist nature of the world economy. For the protagonists of the WST, class divisions have assumed a regional character in the postcolonial world which is divided into ‘core’ and ‘periphery’ regions in terms of wealth accumulation and economic development. In the postcolonial international order, the rich industrial regions of the world form the core, and the vast impoverished third world regions constitute the periphery. Throughout centuries, the core exploited the periphery and accumulated wealth that helped the core regions to build industrial infrastructure. The core regions mostly manufacture goods by using capital which these regions have accumulated in plenty. The peripheral regions mostly supply raw materials and cheap labour to the core, but are neglected by the core as far as capital flow to the periphery is concerned. Thus, according to WST, the present world system is highly unequal because in this system the core dominates over the periphery by means of its economic strength. The core represents mostly the owning class, whereas the periphery represents mainly the non-owning class.

The core uses its economic strength to garner political power and to act as the centre in this new world system. The centre wants to shape this new world order according to its interests. The centre coerces the periphery to accept its diktats, and the periphery sometimes succumbs to such diktats. However, the core and the periphery are not strictly homogeneous categories. Internal crisis, which is typical in the capitalist economic system, may also affect the core. For instance, protagonists of WST like Immanuel Wallerstein, Andre Gunder Frank, Samir Amin and Giovanni Arrighi have pointed out that the two world wars and several other regional wars resulted due to the clash of interests of the core states over the right to dominate and exploit the periphery. The periphery again is not strictly an exclusive category. Within the periphery there may again be centres and peripheries. Thus, the city of Mumbai may be termed as a centre while rural Maharashtra may be described as a periphery. This distinction may also be there in the core regions. The city of Toronto, for instance, makes the centre whereas Winnipeg may form the periphery.

In WST there is also a notion of ‘semi-periphery’. It is an area where some industrial bases have been built, manufacturing of goods has commenced on a moderate scale, and some accumulation of wealth has taken place; but compared to the advanced core regions they are minimal. But the semi-periphery is economically more developed than the periphery. For instance, Singapore or Taiwan may be considered as semi-peripheries as compared to Bangladesh or Bhutan which could be treated as peripheral states in the present world system. A semi-periphery is somewhere between the core and the periphery and may act as a bridge between the two. The former East Bloc countries could also be seen as semi-peripheries. The core tries to dominate both over the periphery and the semi-periphery in order to control the world system. The class struggle in today’s world could take place between the core and the periphery; and in any such class struggle the semi-periphery and the periphery would be treated as one class because the interest of the two would converge against the vastly different capitalist interests of the core. Hence the capitalist class interest in the core.

Some Western scholars of IR like Edward Friedman and William Thompson suggest that there could be upward and downward mobility among the core, the semi-periphery and the periphery. According to them, it is possible for a semi-peripheral state to move upward and join the core. Similarly, a periphery can move upward and become a semi-periphery. Conversely, a core state may go downward to become a semi-periphery. But supporters of WST have never hinted at such possibilities. While it is arguably possible for a periphery to become a semi-periphery, it is difficult to imagine that any core state in today’s world would go downward and turn into a semi-periphery. The high level of wealth accumulation of a core state may prevent it from going downward and turning into a semi-periphery.

Some IR scholars, influenced by Marxism, have developed the dependency theory to explain the plight of the third world countries. Some basic assumptions of the dependency theory come closer to WST, although these two theories are different in the long run. Mostly developed by Latin American scholars like Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Enzo Faletto, the dependency theory puts forward the argument that accumulation of capital in a third world country cannot sustain itself internally. They provided instances from Latin American countries to show that a nation’s own capital was not adequate enough for its overall economic development. Due to its long colonial past, a third world country became perennially dependent on advanced states. A dependent country, even if it accumulates self-sustaining capital, must borrow foreign capital to produce goods, repay debts and build infrastructure for development.

Although the dependency theorists do not highlight the overall structural pattern of the world advanced by WST—like centre and periphery—they focus on the disadvantageous conditions of the peripheral states. For instance, the issue of economic development in a peripheral state is dependent on several conditions, some of which are internal, some external. Internal conditions include the class relationship within the society, the country’s history, and the present political system. External conditions comprise the presence of foreign capital, the MNCs, and global economic and political preferences. The national government of a peripheral state has little control over these internal and external conditions, and as a consequence, its developmental efforts suffer. In this context, dependency theorists have coined the idea of ‘enclave economy’ in which foreign capital is invested in a peripheral country in order to extract raw materials like minerals and plantations, but the sale of products from these raw materials takes place in foreign lands. As a result, the local enclave (state) does not benefit economically, except some jobs for a small group of population. But its natural resources get depleted in the process and the enclave continues to suffer from lack of development. In another form of dependency that emerged in the postcolonial era, the local capitalist class controls production, sells products in local and foreign markets, earns profits, and reinvests these profits in (national) capitalist-controlled local production to earn more profits. This cycle helps to build a strong local bourgeois class which is not different in orientation from the foreign bourgeoisie, because its interests converge with the interests of the foreign capitalists. This class is more concerned with its own profits, makes haphazard industrialization within the state, and is not interested in the overall development of the country. These local capitalists constitute the centre within the periphery, while majority of the poor population and the areas which they inhabit remain the periphery within the periphery. As a consequence development suffers immensely in third world countries. This analysis of WST helps us to identify the basic features of the theory and its leading proponents. They are presented in Box 2.9.

An Evaluation of WST

The WST has been criticized by the neo-liberals as a poor replication of Marxism and its ideas of wealth accumulation and class division. By indicating class division on a regional basis, WST has created further confusion. For instance, it is difficult to assume that capitalists of a region would always share same class interests and would transcend nationalism for common economic interests. For the neo-realists, nationalism is more important in international affairs than class conflicts based on common economic interests of opposing classes. In other words, neo-realists believe that causes of conflict in IR are rooted in power aspirations of nations, and not in class consciousness of people in a region. Moreover, the economic base of class has also been criticized by neo-liberals. Classes may also be formed on the basis of political power or social configuration (and not only on economic factors), in both ‘core’ and ‘periphery’ regions; but the proponents of WST have ignored this reality.

Wallerstein argued that capitalism failed to bring about industrial development in the periphery, but suggested that some industrial development had taken place in the semi-periphery. This view of Wallerstein, a leading protagonist of WST, remained quite unclear. A semi-periphery did not emerge overnight; it grew out of a periphery. If this proposition is correct, then it would not be difficult to assume that some wealth accumulation had taken place in the periphery itself, facilitating, in a very small scale, the process of industrialization in the periphery. In other words, roots of industrialization originated in the periphery, and flourished, to some extent, in the semi-periphery. Therefore, local capitalists did initiate some industrialization in the periphery. If one recalls core (centre) and periphery regions within a periphery as advanced by the proponents of WST, then the role of national capitalists living in the core area within the periphery could not be ignored.

The current trading pattern in the world, however, justifies some of the views of WST. The ‘core’ countries of the West export more manufactured goods, chemicals and machinery than their imports of these items. The ‘periphery’ regions of Asia, Africa and Latin America export more agricultural products, minerals and textiles; and import more machinery, chemicals and other important technologies from the West. As these items are more costly than agricultural and textile products, the periphery does not benefit much economically, and remains dependent on the core. The core uses its economic advantage to gain political mileage, and acts as the ‘centre’ in world politics. Therefore WST helps, to some extent, in analysing current trends in international affairs.

Game Theory

Originally conceived by the Hungarian–American mathematician John Von Neumann, game theory has been widely applied in social sciences since the 1950s. At later stages, the theory was reinforced by the works of scholars like Osker Morgenstern, Anatol Rapoport, Martin Shubik and John Nash. The theory has been useful in analysing situations of conflict, competition and cooperation. It became popular with social scientists because for every society and every state, these issues are important. The theory also finds its application in IR, because conflict, competition and cooperation among nation-states form important areas of discussion in the discipline. Game theory helps in explaining and addressing social problems. Since games often reflect real situations—especially competitive or cooperative situations—they can suggest strategies or ways for dealing with such circumstances. As we may understand the strategy of players in a particular game, we may also be able to predict how people, political factions or nation-states will behave in a given situation.

Situations in the real world, including IR, may replicate any game. Just as players normally try to win games, people in real life also try to win or achieve their goals in competitive situations. However, both in games and in the real world, we have to follow a set of rules to pursue, and finally achieve, our interests or goals. Some games, like some real situations, are intensely competitive, where only one player can win. Chess is an example of such a game. Other games, like football or baseball, require cooperation to win. Similarly, in the real world, some situations demand cooperation even during times of hostility; because rivals here generally share common interests, and must cooperate to some degree for the sake of such common interests. During the Cold War, for instance, despite an intense East–West rivalry, America and the Soviet Union had to cooperate to achieve their common interest of averting a nuclear war.

Game theory usually supports a decision-making approach based on the assumption of rationality of players in a situation of competition. Each player tries to maximize gains or minimize losses under conditions of uncertainty and incomplete information. This situation requires each player to rank preferences, estimate probabilities, and try to discern what the other player is going to do. During the Cold War, both the United States and the USSR played such a game of ‘oneupmanship’. Both wanted to maximize their gains, or at best tried to minimize their losses under conditions of uncertainty. The game theory suggests several types of games. For example, in a two-person zero-sum game, what one player (or actor) wins, the other loses; if A wins 7, B loses 7, and the outcome is zero. The ‘Prisoner’s Dilemma’, analysed later, is an example of this zerosum game. In a two-person non-zero or variable sum game, gains and losses are not necessarily equal; it is possible that both sides may gain. This is sometimes referred to as a positive-sum game. In some games, both parties may lose, and by different amounts or to a different degree. The so-called n-person game includes more than two actors or sides. IR today resembles, to some extent, the n-person game.

Game theory may help in examining strategic interactions among two or more participants. By using easy, sometimes numerical, models to study complex social (including international) relations, this theory can analyse the potential for, and dangers of, cooperative behaviour among distrustful and competing participants. It has five major concepts:

1. players or decision-makers;
2. strategies available to each player, which take into account the potential behaviour of opponents;
3. rules governing players’ behaviour;
4. outcome, each of which is a result of particular choices made by players at a given point in the game;
5. pay-off, accrued by each player as a result of each possible outcome.

The theory assumes that in any game each player would pursue strategies within a set of rules that help him or her to achieve the most profitable outcome in every situation, and get the maximum pay-offs. In the field of IR, nation-states are the players or actors who pursue strategies to achieve the most profitable outcome. In order to achieve a mutually productive outcome, the states must coordinate their strategies, because if each state pursues its greatest potential payoffs, the shared outcome is unproductive. This confusion has been illustrated by the ‘prisoner’s dilemma’ game. This and other games illustrate the potential for cooperation to produce mutually beneficial outcomes. However, they also highlight the difficulties of obtaining cooperation among distrustful participants, because each player is tempted to pursue his or her individual interests. Cooperation requires that both players compromise, and forego their individual maximum pay-offs. Yet, in compromising, each player risks complete loss if the opponent decides to seek the maximum pay-off. Rather than risking total loss, players tend to prefer the less productive outcome.

Prisoner’s Dilemma: An Example of the Zero-Sum Game

‘Prisoner’s dilemma’ is one of the important games propagated by the game theory. It illustrates the paradoxical nature of interaction between two suspicious participants with opposing interests. In this hypothetical situation, two accomplices in a crime are imprisoned, and they enter into a pact not to betray one another and not to confess the crime. The severity of the punishment that each may receive is determined not only by their behaviour, but also by the behaviour of their accomplices. The two prisoners are separated and cannot communicate with each other. Each is provided with four possible outcomes:

1. if one confesses to the crime and puts the blame on the accomplice—thereby defecting from the pact—their sentence would be reduced;
2. if one confesses, but their accomplice does not—that is, the accomplice cooperates with the pact not to betray each other—the first prisoner can strike a deal with the police and would be set free. But the information they provide will be used against the second prisoner, who would receive the maximum punishment;
3. if both individuals confess to the crime—that is, both defect from their pact—then each receives a reduced sentence, but no one is set free;
4. if neither confesses to the crime—that is, they cooperate—then each prisoner receives minimum sentence because of the lack of evidence. This option may not be equally attractive to either person, as the chance of striking a deal with the police and being set free at the expense of one’s partner is wasted. Since the prisoners are not in a position to communicate with each other, the question of whether to ‘trust’ the other not to confess is the most crucial aspect of the game.

The game prisoner’s dilemma can be used to examine complex situations in IR like strategic interactions and arms race between countries. If two rival countries build up their stock of armaments in uncontrolled ways, they increase the potential for mutual loss and destruction. For each country, the gain of arming itself is decreased because the costs of arming—financial costs, increased security tensions, greater mutual destructive capabilities—provide few advantages over the opponent, resulting in an unproductive outcome. However, each country has a choice here—either to cooperate to control arms build-up, with the goal of achieving mutual benefits, or defect from the pact and build armaments. The dilemma stems from the realization that if one country arms itself (defects) and the other does not (cooperates), the country that builds armaments will be considered stronger and will win the game. If both cooperate, the best possible outcome is a tie. This is better than the pay-off from mutual defection and an arms race, but it is not as attractive as winning. The temptation to beat one’s opponent in the arms race is always present. The fear that one’s opponent will give in to such temptations often drives both nations to arms, because not doing so risks total loss. The benefits of not arming can only be realized if one’s opponent overcomes the temptation to win. Such trust is often lacking in international politics.

The supporters of the game theory cite the US-Soviet relationship as an example of the game ‘prisoner’s dilemma’. During the Cold War, the two countries never trusted each other. Each country spent astronomical amounts to arm itself, fearing that the other one was doing the same, and not wanting to lag behind. But the cost incurred in the arms race was so high that it eventually made one player (Soviet Union) to run bankrupt. Had both the nations trusted each other, much of the arms race—as also financial losses, and security tensions for both and also for the rest of the world—could have been avoided. However, the lessons initially drawn from the game ‘prisoner’s dilemma’ can be discouraging. The game illustrates a zero-sum situation, in which one player must lose for the other to win. To keep from losing, each player is motivated to pursue a ‘winning’ strategy. The collective result is unproductive at best, and destructive at worst.

However, an extended version of the game ‘prisoner’s dilemma’ game calls for repeated interaction, which enhances the probability of cooperative behaviour. The logic of this version of the game suggests that a player’s strategy (to defect or cooperate) depends on his experience in previous interactions, and that that strategy will also affect the future behaviour of the opponent. The result is a relationship of mutual reciprocity. An actor is likely to cooperate if the opponent had wanted to cooperate previously, and is unlikely to cooperate if the opponent had not. The assumption that the game will be played again leads players (actors) to consider the consequences of their actions. An opponent may retaliate or be unwilling to cooperate in the future, if one actor always seeks maximum pay-offs at the expense of the other player. This analysis of the game theory leads us to identify some characteristics of the theory along with its main proponents, which are presented in Box 2.10.

An Evaluation of Game Theory

Game theory has not only contributed to the development of models of deterrence and arms race, but it has also provided the basis for work concerning the issue of how collaboration among competitive states in an anarchic world could be achieved. These models may provide insights into the strategic options and likely outcomes available to participants in particular situations. From such insights, decision-makers may assess the potential effects of their actions, and may make decisions that would help to achieve the desired goals. For example, deterrence theory has persisted in US defence strategies since the end of the Second World War. Deterrence assumes that a credible and significant threat of retaliation may curb an aggressor’s behaviour. However, if two states recognize that their best interests lie in avoiding each other’s retaliation, neither is likely to initiate hostilities. This was the guiding principle behind US–Soviet relations during much of the Cold War. The concept of mutual deterrence paved the way for arms-control measures and further cooperation. By highlighting strategic choices and potential collective outcomes, game theory helped in illustrating how a potentially destructive relationship could be managed and transformed to provide mutual benefits, including measures to control arms race and nuclear war.

The game theory fails to answer why states as actors are often irrational, and why they are guided by different notions of rationality. A central problem is that the rational decision for an individual actor such as the state may be to ‘defect’ and go it alone as opposed to taking a chance in collaborating with another state actor. Thomas Schelling has questioned the validity of the game theory in its zero sum form. He believes that the zero sum game has contributed very little to the solution of the problems such as limited war, surprise attacks, atomic blackmail and massive retaliation. He provides a detailed criticism of the game theory on this issue. According to him the essence of international politics lies in the existence of conflict and mutual dependence which demands some kind of cooperation and accommodation among states. This situation presupposes that there should be an interdependence of expectations. In other words, the choice of a state largely depends on what it expects from other states.

Schelling believes that since the range of alternatives is very large, bargaining becomes necessary. He holds that if bargaining results in the convergence of mutually consistent expectations, there would be suggestions exchanged by the players and that collaboration and accommodation can be carried on by basic motives of commitments, promises or threats. The concept of zero sum game is valid only in the case of war. But in the study of IR, war is not the only issue demanding analysis. In situations other than war, there are elements of cooperation and accommodation as well. These situations are mostly bargaining situations in which conflict and cooperations can be found. Bargaining situations are different from the zero sum game because the latter has no scope for collaboration.

Richard Snyder has warned against premature application of mathematical models to political problems. According to him, two factors contribute to the premature application of the game theory to politics. First, the game theory or certain games advocated by the theory might not be sufficiently developed to analyse all political problems properly. Second, political science or IR, in the reverse way, may not be ready yet to use many of the sophisticated models developed by mathematicians or statisticians. Therefore, it is wise not to be too euphoric about mathematical models provided by the game theory.

Decision-Making Theory

The decision-making theory in IR seeks to focus on the decision-making aspects for analyses of policies of nation-states. The subjects of enquiry in this theory mainly relate to issues like how and why ruling elites of states behave in certain ways in IR. One of the key assumptions of the theory holds that political actions follow ways which the decision-makers as ‘actors’ want them to follow. Therefore, the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of a political action, and the reasons behind it, are the preferred areas of study in decision-making theory. In other words, the setting or background in which policy decisions are made is studied by the theory.

Decision-making theory in IR mainly focuses on foreign policy decisions of countries and the setting in which these decisions are taken. This setting or background has two sides: internal and external. The ‘internal setting’ includes personality of decision-makers; organizational structure and culture which may influence the decision-makers; values and aspirations (goals) of society; ideology of the party that runs the government and technological factors. The ‘external setting’ consists of broader political and economic systems prevailing in the world; dominant values, such as liberalism, socialism and free or restricted trade; and also technological factors. The theory gained tremendous popularity in social science disciplines like economics, sociology, business management, political science and IR. Decision-making theory, which came to IR in the 1950s, is still very popular because it anlyses interesting issues like how and why a nation behaves in a particular manner in IR, and reasons behind such behaviours. Theorists like Richard Snyder, H. W. Bruck, Burton Sapin, Harold and Margaret Sprout, Dean Rusk and Alexander and Juliette George have made important contributions in the study of decision-making in IR.

What do we gain by analysing decisions of nations, or, in other words, what is the purpose of the theory? This theory helps us to identify important structures in the political system of a nation where decisions are made. There may be formal or informal, and known or not-so-known structures where decisions are formulated. For instance, the Council of Ministers is a formal structure, but the ‘kitchen cabinet’ consisting of key members of the government is an informal one. Both structures may be associated with the decision-making proces. Again, the ruling party may be a known institution for decision-making, but the influential ‘nucleus’ within the party may be a little known caucus. Further, the systematic analysis of decision-making may lead to unearth certain behaviours or ‘actions’ of a certain state in the sphere of IR. Why India took military actions during the Kargil crisis? Which decisions led to such actions? What led the United States to attack Iraq? These and many other inquiries could be met by the decisionmaking theory. This theory sees the actions of the state through the actions of the decision-makers.

While the mindset of the decision-makers influence the decisions they make, actions taken on the basis of decisions consist of the manifest behaviour of the actors. In other words, decisions belong to the internal psychological world, whereas actions belong to the external, manifest world. On the basis of these two, decisions and actions, proponents of the theory have put emphasis on three foundations of decision-making. These are: (1) environmental factors; (2) psychological factors and (3) real actors behind decision-making. Environmental factors in the theory refer to a milieu that is composed of psychological and operational aspects which can set limits on the choice of the decision-maker. Harold and Margaret Sprout have examined the relationship between the environment and decision-making. They have analysed how the decision-makers view the environment, and how environment may remain outside the perception and estimate of the decision-makers. Put differently, a decision-maker may not have total control over the environment as the Sprouts have defined them. They are interested not in the origin of decisions, but rather in analysing decisions after they are taken in the context of the environment, and in the limits set by the environment. This approach helps in making a comparative analysis of decisions. For instance, a foreign policy, analysed with reference to environment, may be compared with another foreign policy, and measures for improvement may be suggested.

Proponents of psychological factors of decision-making take into account the personality traits of the decision-maker, and how these personality traits shape decisions and actions. Alexander and Juliette George have studied the personality factor of the former American President Woodrow Wilson, and anlysed how his personality influenced his decisions. Although the impact of the personality factor on the overall decision is not beyond doubt, it is not totally irrelevant either. Personality factors of leaders like Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, Mao and Indira Gandhi had profound impact on their decision-making and actions. But the impact of personality factors is dependent on the position of the decision-maker in the policy-making structure, nature of the decision and value orientations of the decision-maker. If the decision-maker occupies a central position in the policy making body, the impact of their personality on decision-making would be greater. Stalin’s or Indira’s personality would have been less pronounced on their decisions, if they did not occupy central positions in decision-making structures. The factor of personality is also dependent on the nature of the decision. Decisions which involve crucial national interests, such as the survival of the state, may have less personality imprints. Values, beliefs and attitudes of the decision-maker may shape their personality, and impact decisionmaking. A decision-maker, indoctrinated in Marxist ideology, would likely to go for a socialist political system. Further, a leader with an adventurous attitude may be inclined to make risky decisions. But it must be mentioned here that personality factors are subjective, and not beyond question in the process of decision-making.

Theorists like Bernard Cohen, Roger Hilsman and James Robinson want to concentrate on the real actors or the actual makers of foreign policy. Cohen identified five principal institutions in the making of foreign policy: (1) specific actors in the executive (Head of the Government, Foreign Minister and few other members of the cabinet and bureaucracy); (2) specific committees in the legislature; (3) concerned interest groups; (4) public opinion and (5) the mass media. He believes that these five agencies constitute the core actors in foreign policy-making. Hilsman believes that a foreign policy is the final outcome of a process of different objectives of the executive and the legislature. Therefore, to Hilsman, the executive and the legislature are the two real actors behind foreign policy. Robinson believes, following his case study on foreign policy-making in the United States, that the legislature is the core decision-maker in foreign policy issues. However, it should be noted here that the nature of ‘core actors’ in foreign policy making may vary from country to country, but the executive and the legislature play important roles in almost all political systems. Further, some individuals like the presidents, prime ministers, foreign ministers and some institutions like the executive, legislature, bureaucracy and mass media act as important ‘actors’ in foreign policy making.

A few models have been developed by the theorists based on their different approaches to the process of decision-making. Prominent among these models are rational goals-ends model, quagmire model and risk analysis model. According to the rational goals-ends model, objectives or goals are first decided by the policy maker; then the means to achieve these goals are decided upon. In deciding the means to realize objectives, policy makers go through ‘rational’ and ‘comprehensive’ steps before arriving at any final decision. These steps include all possible alternatives, analysed in a rational way as far as possible, and a comprehensive outlook that takes into account all inputs from different agents interested in foreign policy. Therefore, according to this model, decisions are rational policies to achieve certain objectives, as well as the means to realize these objectives. The quagmire model believes that big decisions are not made at any point by any single individual. Decisions are not also made for any long-term goal. Decisions are made in a piecemeal manner, in short ranges, and they are continued step by step. In that sense, decisions are incremental; a short-term decision may continue if the situation demands, and can be converted into a long-term decision. The American decision to involve itself in Vietnam was initially a short-term decision; but as things turned out, it ultimately became a long-term policy with incremental effects. This model is also known as the ‘quicksand’ or the ‘incremental’ model. In the risk analysis model, possible outcomes of each decision and action, and the risks involved, are thoroughly examined. The objective is to carefully analyse decisions and their possible effects when they are implemented. The risk analysis technique is very popular in management sciences and organizational behaviour where important decisions are scrutinized before they are put into practice. In IR, this technique has been adopted to examine foreign policy. These analyses of the decision-making theory may now help us to identify the basic assumptions of the theory, and some notable protagonists, as presented in Box 2.11.

The decision-making theory is useful in unravelling the actions of nation-states in IR. By focussing on foreign policy making and implementation, the decision-making theory helps to solve the puzzle of states’ actions in international politics. The theory tries to meet, sometimes successfully, the how and why of a state’s actions. There is no denying the fact that IR are still primarily interactions among states. In a community of states, the behavioural aspects of states make central issues in the study of IR. Why states behave in a certain manner? Why do they take particular actions? The decision-making theory tries to answer these questions by examining the foreign policies of states. Although it is not easy to grasp the totality of foreign policy, this theory nevertheless has provided ways to examine the intricate nature of foreign policy, and found out reasonable methods to study the complex web of international affairs. IR revolves around decisions, and the urge to properly study these important decisions has provided significant research orientations to IR scholars. Decision-making theory fulfills the need to study policy making and implementation which constitute crucial subject matters in IR.

But decision-making is very much a subjective element which is difficult to study from an objective value-free approach. The environmental factor or the personality factor can never be entirely objective. When the decision-making theory refers to the psychological ‘internal’ aspects of decisionmaking, it plunges into a world of the unknown. Here lies the greatest paradox of the theory. It aims to study foreign policy as objectively as possible, but refers to psychological factors or personality factors as important elements in decision-making. Is it possible to read a statesman’s mind fully objectively? Can an individual who occupies the central position in decision-making be totally value free? These crucial questions go unanswered in the decision-making theory.

Are decisions fully rational, as suggested by the rational goals-ends model? Although decisions are products of rationality when they are made, but they may appear to be quite ‘irrational’ when they are put into ‘action’. This complexity may create problems in studying both ‘decisions’ and actions of the state. If a ‘rational’ decision becomes an irrational action, the researcher would be in great trouble. America’s Vietnam policy may be cited here as an example. When the United States got involved in Vietnam for the first time, the decision, taken after comprehensive discussions, appeared rational. But later on the same decision appeared to be irrational when the American public opinion condemned the Vietnam policy. Therefore, decisions are not always rational and objective, and they can never be studied fully objectively. But subjective assessment of foreign policy may create more difficulties in the study of IR. Due to this dichotomy, the decision-making theory fails to become an adequate theory to study the complex nature of IR today.

Systems Theory

The systems theory owes its origin to biology, particularly to the writings of Ludwig Von Bertallanfy, a noted biologist of the 1920s. From biology, the systems theory came to anthropology, sociology and political science. Sytems theory in IR was first introduced in the mid-1950s by a group of American scholars. Since then, this approach has become popular in analysing the courses of IR. To understand this theory, it is necessary to know what a ‘system’ is. According to Bertallanfy (1968: 11), the founder of the systems theory, a system ‘is a set of elements standing in interaction’. James Rosenau, a scholar of IR, believes that ‘a system is considered to exist in an environment and to be composed of parts which through interaction are in relation to each other’ (1961: 35). Proponents of the theory hold that every system has many components. First, every system has clearly identifibale ‘elements’. The elements of the solar system are the sun and the planets. Similarly, the elements of international system are the nation-states. Second, a system must have a set of ‘relationships’ among elements. The elements must interact and remain interdependent to engage themselves in relationships. For example, the family may be called a system because its elements, the individual members, interact with one another and remain interdependent. In the international system, nation-states interact with one another, and are dependent on one another.

The third characteristc of a system is the concept of ‘boundary’. This boundary separates a sytem from other phenomena like the broader environment and other systems. A systems theorist must know where a system begins and where it ends, and must have a clear notion of the boundary of a system. Without boundaries, a system is incomplete. However, everything around us does not constitute a system. For instance, people present in a supermarket at a particular time do not make a system, because they do not share any relationship and are not inderdependent. So, a system consists of three things: identifiable elements; relationship among elements; and clear notion of boundary. A system has sub-systems. For example, in the solar system, the earth and its satellite, the moon, constitute a sub-system. Similarly, in the international system, regional organizations—such as the ASEAN or the SAARC—form one type of sub-systems.

The proponents of the systems theory in IR believe that a scientific study of IR is possible if the interactions among nation-states and their levels of interdependence can be satisfactorily analysed. For instance, Morton Kaplan, one of the best known systems theorist of IR, holds that interaction and interdependence of nation-states are to be examined in order to have a good knowledge about the international system. This, he maintains, could be done with the help of six models of international system. These are: (1) balance of power system; (2) loose bipolar system; (3) tight bipolar system; (4) universal actor system; (5) hierarchical international system and (6) unit veto system. A few words about the six models are necessary to understand Kaplan’s views.

The balance of power system works on the basis of interaction and interdependence among the major powers in international politics. Five to six major powers in the world, more or less equal in strength, maintain a balance in international politics by increasing and showing their strengths. Each state is aware of the strength of others, and is not normally inclined to alter the balance. For example, if state A knows that military and economic strengths of states B, C, D, E and F are equal to those of its own, it would not risk antagonizing them. This way a balance, though precarious, would be maintained in world politics. In fact, this balance of power system existed in the world for three-and-a-half centuries, from the seventeenth to the mid-twentieth century, when five to six major powers controlled international politics through understanding and negotiations. According to Kaplan, this system may get disturbed if any of the actors (states) does not follow the rules of the game, that is, if any actor gains strength tremendously, the balance may be destroyed. This would also mean a shift in the decision-making process of the actor towards more ambitious national interests.

According to Kaplan, the balance of power system, if destroyed, may result in a loose bipolar system where two states become dominant, and control world politics. After the Second World War, two main actors, the United States and the USSR, controlled world politics by leading opposing blocs of states. This system, which lasted till 1991, could be termed as a loose bipolar system. Under this system, the two superpowers were surrounded by groups of smaller powers and non-aligned countries. The attachment of non-aligned countries to either of the superpowers, according to Kaplan, made the system loose. Moreover, unlike the balance of power system, there were no set of rules to be followed by the leading actors of the system.

The tight bipolar system, which may develop after the collapse of the loose bipolar system, is different from the latter in several ways. Non-aligned states, who made the previous system loose, would not hang around with the principal actors. The system would operate only around two main actors, leading two tightly controlled super blocs. But the stability of the system would remain only when the states of the two super blocs are hierarchically organized. This presupposes tight control of the leaders of respective super blocs. If this hierarchy dissolves, it tends to give way to a loose bipolar system again.

The universal actor system may also develop after the loose bipolar system. Under this system, the universal actor, such as the UN, is powerful enough to control the national actors (individual states). This system would be a highly integrated system, possessing integrated mechanisms which would perform political, economic, judicial and administrative functions. The national actors would be allowed to pursue their objectives, but within the framework set by the universal actor. The system would work on the basis of the value structure of national actors to pursue their objectives through peaceful methods, and to avoid the threat of force. Prestige and rewards will be given to national actors, as also to individual human beings for adhering to the norms of the system. The universal actor would be able to restrict the national actors from resorting to war. But this system would witness initial instability because the national actors would like to pursue power to fulfill their objectives, but once the universal actor establishes its control, the sytem would stabilize.

In the hierarchical international system, one universal actor would control world politics. This system can be both directive and non-directive. If the international order is controlled by one national actor like Nazi Germany, this system would be directive. But if the controlling national actor follows principles of democracy, it would be non-directive. In the directive hierarchical system, there would be greater tension within the sytem as small actors would feel insecure and threatened. But in the non-directive hierarchical system there would be lesser tension due to the prevalence of democratic principles.

The unit veto system is one where all national actors are immensely powerful and can destroy one another. Under this system, all actors possess highly destructive weapons, such as WMDs, to finish others. It is a system similar to the state of nature described by Hobbes where all are selfish and quarrelsome, and target others.

Through these six models of interaction among nation-states, Kaplan elucidated his views about the international system. According to him, one political system can be distinguished from other systems by its rules which clearly specify areas of jurisdiction and methods of conflict resolution. He believes that physical force is necessary to make the political system survive because for conflict resolution, which is a major function of the political system, physical force may be ultimately required. Kaplan criticizes the realists for their emphasis on ‘power’, saying that the realist zeal for power failed to distinguish between the ‘political’ and the ‘non-political’. The realists made power so ubiquitous that it included everything, even the family and the peer groups. But relationships in these groups are non-political, and therefore may remain outside the purview of power, unlike the nation-states.

The idea of an international system where nation-states are the main ‘elements’, and their interactions make the system survive, is not beyond controversy. Scholars like C. W. Manning support the idea of the international system resting on nation-states, whereas others like Kenneth Boulding and John Herz feel that the nation-state itself is facing many crises to remain a major ‘element’ in the system. Manning believes that the concepts of sovereignty, national interest, institutionalized diplomacy and international law make the nation-states very strong as pillars of the international system. But Boulding and Herz think that the impact of atomic weapons, globalization and stellite communication has made them weak and, therefore, the international system based on nation-states may not be identified as a proper system. Even Kaplan had doubts about IR being seen as a proper systematic discipline. He preferred to see IR as a sub-discipline of political science. However, it was he who made a thorough application of the sytems theory to the study of IR. We are now in a position to identify the basic assumptions of the systems theory in IR, and its main protagonists. These are presented in Box 2.12.

An Evaluation of Systems Theory in IR

The systems theory perceives IR as a system where nation-states are the main actors. But it is difficult to put the whole range of IR, which is not very organized, within the systems framework. IR is not only interactions among states, several non-state actors and individuals exert considerable influence on IR today. The systems theory failed to recognize their roles within the framework of the international system. It may envisage methodological problems, because the concept of ‘elements’ is not very clear here. The theory considered nation-states as ‘elements’ leaving out several important non-state elements of the international system which play significant roles in international politics today. Another methodological problem relates to the concept of ‘environment’ which is also not clear in this theory. Since the international system encompasses almost everything—from political to economic, to cultural, to scientific—what remains outside the purview of its scope? In other words, since IR discusses almost every problem in the world, what is left out as environment here? The idea of interaction of elements with environment, in the form of receiving inputs and providing outputs, sounds confusing. If the whole world is the subject-matter of study in IR, what remains as the environment? Therefore, the concept of environment is either absent or is very limited in the international system, as perceived by the proponents of the theory.

Among the six models of the international system advocated by Kaplan, three are highly improbable. The first among the three is the universal actor system where the universal actor is sufficiently strong to restrict national actors from using the threat of force or resorting to war. Is it possible for any universal actor like the UNO to restrict the ambitions of several national actors? If any national actor thinks that its national interest demands the use of force, it will not hesitate to use force. Moreover, what is the source of strength of the universal actor? Kaplan is not very explicit about the source. Is there any guarantee that all national actors would follow a value structure as propounded by Kaplan? In the final analysis, the universal actor system suffers from several defects, and it is unlikely to be a reality in IR. The hierarchical international system also suffers from maladies. It is difficult to achieve the non-directive hierarchical system based on democratic principles. We may respect and love democratic ideals, but there is little reason to believe that the whole international system would be run according to democratic values. On the contrary, directive hierarchical order like the Nazi rule would be more visible in international politics, because there would always be rogue states to break the normal preferences. Finally, the unit veto system resembling the Hobbes’ state of nature is also an improbability in today’s IR. Even if every state possesses highly destructive weapons, the whole world may not be destroyed, because that would be suicidal for every state, and would work against the national interest of every actor. On the contrary, anti-weapons movements would be strengthened, because that would save the world and the international system. After all, making the system survive may fulfill every actor’s national interest.

But the systems theory in IR has made some notable contributions to the discipline. The systems theory made the study of IR more organized and focused. It also provided ways for the international system to survive, and adapt itself to changes. A system is an integrated one where all elements work to make the system survive. In the international system, the nation-states, knowingly or unknowingly, help the system to survive and progress. Moreover, the inputs the system receives from the environment help it to adapt to new and newer demands, and to accommodate itself to changes. This becomes manifest through the outputs produced by the system. Despite crises, the international system had survived and progressed. Systems theory of IR strongly sends the message that by adapting itself to changes, the international system would become an efficient system where the nations-states would be more engaged in cooperation and mutual development.

Communication Theory

Communication theory in IR owes its origin to cybernetics, which is a systematic study of communication and control in organizations. The initial contributions towards the development of communication theory came from Norbert Weiner in the 1940s. He noted that major wartime advances in electronic communication, such as sonar, radar and radar-controlled anti-aircraft weapons, involved transfer of information. He identified that these communication processes in machines were similar to human, social and institutional processes. In other words, Weiner believed that basic similarities existed among electronic signals, human nerve cells and governmental functions. They are all goal-oriented systems which share and transmit information. It was Karl Deutsch who followed Weiner’s logic and brought the concept of cybernetics to study IR. Deutsch, the pioneer of communication theory in IR, pointed out that cybernetics was important to politics because it provided an alternative to power, which, according to him, was ‘steering’. Modern politics, domestic or international, is not rooted in power as the realists suggest but in ‘steering’, believes Deutsch. A government’s primary function, according to Deutsch, is to steer the nation and not to engage in power, which may be dangerous for the country.

In his book The Nerves of Government: Models of Political Communication and Control, Deutsch argued that cybernetics, as the study of communication and control, offers a general perspective on all kinds of politics. Communications remain at the centre of politics, and form the ‘nerves of government’. The study of communications may help us to know how messages flow among decision-makers, and how such messages contribute towards making decisions. Cybernetics is applicable to any system that possesses adequate organization, communication and control; any system where messages are frequently transferred, retrieved, stored and responded. The international political system fulfills these criteria, and hence the study of communication flows help to analyse international politics. Transmission of messages, whether through electronic machines, human interactions or nerve cells, are always significant to any system—electronic, biological or social. Communication flow is also very important in international politics, and a proper study of these communications may bring out the core of international politics.

How does this communication network operate? Proponents of communication theory have identified several mechanisms through which flow of communication takes place. These are: (1) information; (2) entropy; (3) load; (4) lag; (5) distortion; (6) gain; (7) lead and (8) feedback. In order to understand the theory, a few words about these mechanisms of communication are necessary. Information is knowledge about events taking place in the system. In case of IR, it would mean knowledge about events and processes in the international system. Information is generally transmitted through communication and can be reproduced, stored, quantified and measured. This information is the backbone of any communication. The idea of entropy comes from thermodyanamics. It refers to the tendency of a closed system to decay. According to Wiener, every organized thing, whether a living being or a machines, is prone to decay. A closed political system is, therefore, prone to entropy and requires strong flow of communications. The concept of load refers to the gap between the goals of a political system and the information about its changing environment. The environment may put stress on the system. Any system, the international political system included, has to bear with load. If the system can take on the load, it can function efficiently. Conversely, inability to handle load may make the system vulnerable. Excessive demands may put stress on the system and create loads. For instance, the demand for equal rights of states may create load in IR and lead to conflicts.

The idea of load is dependent on the flow of informtion. The time taken between the realization of load (reception of information) and sending of response to it is called lag. In other words, it is the time taken by the decision-makers to respond to the information about load. The greater the lag, the more inefficient the system is. Conversely, an efficient political system could respond to the information about load more quickly. Distortion is an idea close to lag. It refers to the changes that take place in information when it is received and when it is responded to. The system would be in trouble if much distortion takes place. The concept of gain refers to the reaction of a system to load, and the amount of changes the system makes due to load. If the change is substantial the gain is more and vice versa. The idea of gain helps to measure the speed and extent of the decision-maker’s reaction to load. For instance, if political or military measures are taken quickly in response to a sudden attack, it may amount to gain.

The idea of lead refers to the ability of an organization to assess elements of future stress, anticipate incoming loads and make necessary adjustments in advance. It provides information about future crises. A system that is more capable in making such predictions is more efficient than one which cannot secure ‘lead’. Feedback is information about the success or failure of decision-makers’ reactions to load. It may help to improve the responses to loads or crises. The quality of feedback that the decision-makers receive about their responses may bring out the effectiveness of the system. A self-regulatory system is more likely to provide quality feedbacks. Feedback helps to shape further decisions and responses, and is, therefore, an important-mechanism in the communication flow. Learning refers to accquiring and upgrading knowledge about the system, based on information. Load, lag, gain and feedback help to augment learning. The learning mechanism is a continuous process in the communication approach. It helps the organization to work against entropy and makes it stronger and more efficient. These are some of the important mechanisms of cybernetics, as presented by communication theory in IR. The efficacy of a government can be measured in terms of these mechanisms, as the following illustration would show.

The failure of the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) in Sri Lanka during 1987–89 could be analysed with reference to the communication theory. All governments depend on communication system for effective functioning. During the IPKF operations in Sri Lanka, at least six mechanisms of communication showed marked weakness. Information channels were poor. The Indian government had little knowledge when it agreed to send the IPKF to Sri Lanka that the force would be targeted and killed by the Tamil militants like the LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Ealam). The government was unable to secure lead as it failed to assess and anticipate future stress. Such poor information and failure to get lead created load on the government, which resulted in lag when the government responded in a slipshod manner. Moreover, due to weak feedback mechanism, the government was not in a position to corner any positive gain. As a consequence, the IPKF had to be withdrawn finally when there were huge setbacks in terms of killing of Indian soldiers, drainage on the exchequer, and overall political and military embarrasment. In this case, the change was insufficient and negative, resulting in lesser gain. As this example shows, it is possible to analyse issues in IR by the communication theory.

This analysis of the communication theory leads us to identify some basic assumptions of the theory and its important proponents. These are given in Box 2.13.

An Evaluation of Communication Theory

Communication theory opens up new and unexplored areas in the study of IR. By focusing on the value of information and communication in international politics, this theory could provide an alternative to power politics. This alternative was the idea of ‘steering’, based on communication. The communication model was also able to replace traditional concepts of IR. According to John Burton, by focusing on the decision-making processes in the perspective of communication flow, this theory replaced the static concepts of balance of power, and the traditional notion of politics as a struggle for power. The idea of politics based on power proves the inability of the political system to make adjustments and changes according to the needs of time, thinks Burton. Communication theory, according to him, also helps in policy planning and policy analysis. In the nuclear age, it is important to know policies of states and how decisions are made and implemented by nations. This theory also helps to understand a state’s reaction to issues and events in IR, as noted in the example provided earlier about the IPKF in Sri Lanka.

But critics of this theory contend that the model of cybernetics is not applicable to all political problems. Cybernetics is very helpful in engineering but not in IR, because IR does not constitute a ‘system’ in the real sense of the term. Unprecedented expansion of IR today is not suitable for the cybernetics model which works effectively in smaller circuits. Davis Bobrow, for instance, believes that not all issues in IR could fit into the cybernetics model. It would be cumbersome to examine all events and issues in IR in terms of the mechanisms of cybernetics such as load, lag, lead, entropy orgain. Moreover, steering does not cover every aspect of government activities, and sometimes the notion of ‘power’ helps to analyse a state’s functions, especially when the state is dealing with national interest or security. Despite such criticisms, there is little doubt that the communication theory brought some fresh changes to the study of IR.

Postmodernism

The origin of postmodernism could be attributed to a group of French philosophers like Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault who challenged the idea of existentialism prevalent in France after the Second World War. Postmodernism emerged in France in the early 1950s, although it entered the study of IR in the early 1980s. It must be made clear at the outset that the term ‘postmodernism’ was never used by its proponents; rather they preferred to use terms like ‘poststructuralism’ and ‘deconstruction’. However, the coinage postmodernism became increasingly acceptable throughout the world since the mid-1970s, possibly due to the proponents’ attack on what was termed as ‘modernism’ after the Second World War. Postmodernism entered into the study of IR through the works of scholars like Richard Ashley, Jenny Adkins, Cynthia Weber, Rob Walker and David Campbell.

Postmodernist thinkers hold the view that scholars build, and live in, their own conceptual prisons. The most notable conceptual prison is that of modernity itself and the idea that modernization leads to progress and an improved life for humanity. Postmodernists attack the idea put forward by ‘modern’ thinkers that there can be objective knowledge of social issues. For the postmodernists, knowledge is not simply a cognitive factor; knowledge is also normative and political. According to Foucault, power and knowledge are mutually supportive, and they directly imply one another. It is therefore important to see how activities concerning power fit in with the social and political issues in the world. Postmodernists are critical of classical liberals like Kant who believed in ‘knowledge’ or ‘enlightenment’. They are also critical of contemporary positivists who believe in the objectivity and superiority of ‘science’. Both liberals and positivists believe in the advancement of human knowledge which postmodernists find limited and narrow, akin to a prison.

Like the postmodernists in general, postmodern IR theorists reject the notion of objective truth. They contradict the idea that there can be anything like the ‘expanding knowledge’ in our world. These notions are intellectual illusions that create subjective beliefs, like a religious faith. The liberals or neo-realists may claim that they have discovered the real truth about IR, but they actually live in the world of illusions created by their own intellectual dogmas. By attacking the modernist belief that knowledge can expand and improve, leading to continuous progress of the world, postmodernists have recognized human efforts to control the society and the world. They also reject the belief that appropriate institutions can be created to provide just and fair treatment to all people.

Through ‘deconstruction’, the postmodernists want to look at every accepted or settled idea with new lenses. Deconstruction is a process of radically challenging and unsettling accepted concepts, and providing fresh insights into them. In the field of IR, for instance, stable theories like liberalism or realism have been deconstructed by postmodernists like Ashley or Weber to prove that these theories were not suitable to explain the present international system. These theories were ‘metanarratives’ or accounts which claimed to have discovered the truth about the human world. But such claims are hollow and unfounded. Ashley, for example, argues that neo-realist claims about the everlasting anarchical nature of international politics are unfounded because there are no impartial grounds for judging them. Narratives or metanarratives are constructed by theorists and they are always prejudiced by their personal biases. Social science is never impartial or neutral; it is historical, cultural and political and therefore, biased. Ashley believes that the neo-realist knowledge about everlasting anarchy in the international order is biased because the neo-realists wanted to establish this ‘fact’ (anarchy) as an objective truth. This desire to find the objective truth may blind thinkers and compel them to declare facts of his choice as objective truths. As Jackson and Sorensen have observed, ‘every theory, including neorealism, decides for itself what counts as “facts”. There is no neutral or impartial or independent standpoint to decide between rival empirical claims. Empirical theory is myth. In other words, there is no objective reality; everything involving human beings is subjective’ (2003: 251). According to postmodernists, there cannot be any stable or grand theory; everything must come under scrutiny because knowledge is intimately linked to power, the desire to prevail over others. This makes knowledge not universal, but susceptible to deconstruction.

Robert Walker, in his book Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory, attempted to deconstruct the idea of state sovereignty. Walker’s analysis led to a fresh inquiry into state sovereignty as a useful descriptive category to explain IR today. He suggested that modern political life was not only organized around sovereign states and sovereign boundaries of states; it questioned the notion of state sovereignty as the most accepted subjective category of IR today. New forms of political community and identity can emerge beyond the notion of sovereign states, and can become important subjective ideas of contemporary IR. Walker opposed the idea of accepting the sovereign state as the pivotal element of the present international system and unsettled the historic notion of primacy of sovereign states in IR. William Connolly also provided a postmodern critique of state sovereignty by challenging the accepted notion that the sovereign state possessed monopoly over the allegiances, identifications and energies of its members. State sovereignty, argued Connolly, was incompatible with democracy in an international order where globalization was believed to have broken national boundaries in the period of modernization. Globalization, state sovereignty and democracy are highly incompatible in contemporary IR, believes Connolly.

These postmodernist views help us to identify some basic features of what is called ‘postmodern theory’ of IR. These features, along with the leading postmodern thinkers, are presented in Box 2.14.

An Evaluation of Postmodernism in IR

The contributions of postmodernism to the theory of IR are many. To begin with, it exposed the intimate connection between knowledge and power. What we know as universal knowledge is ultimately the ideas of the powerful in the society. Knowledge backed by political power normally becomes ‘universal’ knowledge, and acceptable. Postmodernists exposed this illusion, disguised as knowledge, by indicating that knowledge is prejudiced. Secondly, through the process of deconstruction, the postmodernists were able to give fresh insights into liberal notions of state sovereignty and neo-realist claims about anarchy as the objective truth in IR. State sovereignty is not the most important subject in the study of IR today, as claimed by the liberals. In the postmodern world, any account of international politics must also include transnational actors and movements that work outside and inside state borders. The ideas of democracy and state sovereignty are not at all compatible, think the postmodernists. They also burst the bubble created by the neo-realists about anarchy as an everlasting objective truth in IR. This view of anarchy is highly subjective, as it is clouded by personal choices of the neo-realist thinkers. Thirdly, postmodernists renewed the concept of the ‘political’ in IR by expanding its applicability beyond territories of the sovereign state. In other words, the term ‘political’ may also be invoked without referring to the sovereign state. For instance, there may be a political community or identity beyond sovereign states. Postmodernists broadened the sphere of the political which opened up several theoretical assumptions in the study of IR.

But there are also negative aspects of postmodernism. If every theory is prejudiced by personal preferences of its thinkers, what about the postmodern theory? Is it above bias or prejudice? If not, then why would we accept it? Postmodernism actually raised the possibility of falling in the trap created by its thinkers. Moreover, the process of deconstruction is not beyond question. Deconstruction can be worse than the original construction, and may generate confusions. The process of deconstruction would be unending as every new construction would attract deconstruction. This would simultaneously bring unending confusions in our analyses. Further, postmodernists in IR rejected narratives and metanarratives, and accused liberal and neo-realist thinkers of using metanarratives. Yet their deconstructions of earlier theories in the discipline were not dissimilar to metanarratives, as they reached certain conclusions which they also wanted to establish as ‘facts’.

Scholars like Jackson and Sorensen hold the view that postmodernism can degenerate into nihilism—negativism for its own sake. They wrote, ‘Criticism can be made merely for the sake of criticism. Narratives can be taken apart with nothing to take their place. Ultimately, postmodernists can become estranged from the social and political world that they seek to understand’ (2003: 252). This over-critical attitude of postmodern theorists subjected them to scepticism, and made their theory controversial. This attitude was also labeled by liberals as dogmatic. In their efforts to reject dogmatism in earlier theories, postmodernists in IR were accused of confining themselves to new dogmas like deconstruction, and challenge to ‘metanarratives’ that ultimately became fetishes for the postmodernists. As a consequence, their views suffered from inadequacy and imbalance.

Constructivism

Constructivism is not a new theory in IR, although it is often highlighted as a new discourse in the study of the subject. After the end of the Cold War, constructivism has been presented in a new light by a group of Western thinkers like Alexander Wendt, Nicholas Onuf, Peter Katzenstein and Friedrich Kratochwil. But the roots of constructivism could be traced back to the eighteenth century in the writings of Italian philosopher Giambattista Vico, who argued that social and world history were shaped by human beings. States were also created by human beings, and relations among states did not develop naturally; they were built by men and women living in states. Contemporary constructivism argues in the same way, although with more sophisticated, and sometimes difficult, terminologies. Constructivism today does not accept the social world as something ‘given’, as a natural identity. It was created by human beings with their ideas, concepts and thoughts.

Constructivism therefore believes that our social world is not made essentially by material forces, external to human ideas and control; our world is made of human thoughts, beliefs and innovative ideas. Proponents of this theory contradict the material, scientific theories of the world, commonly known as the positivist approach in IR, and prefer instead an ideational view of our world. Human relations, including IR, have been constructed by men and women, because no natural law can govern politics and economics of the world; these are governed through laws devised by human beings. Every material manifestation in international affairs—cooperation, conflict, allies, enemies, interests, power—bears meaning given to it by humans. Nothing in IR is natural, created without human agency; everything is a product of conscious construction by human beings. Social structures, according to Alexander Wendt, are created through human ideas. There can be different, sometimes opposing, social structures in IR, but they are all dependent on human ideas. For instance, a ‘security community’—for example, the NATO—is a social structure created by men; as also the ‘security dilemma’ of states, where one country views the other as its opponent or enemy.

Constructivism focuses on inter-subjective beliefs—such as ideas, assumptions or views—that are widely shared by people. These inter-subjective beliefs shape ways in which people build relations with others and conceive of themselves in society. For instance, the collective assumption of people of country A that country B is not friendly towards them may lead to an adverse relationship between states A and B. Constructivists also try to explore how these relations are formed and expressed. Constructivists like Finnemore and Sikkink have referred to state sovereignty as an expression of inter-subjective belief. According to them, state sovereignty has no definite material reality, but it exists only because people collectively believe in its existence, and act accordingly.

Human relations based on inter-subjective beliefs can be both cooperative and conflicting. There can be agreements or disagreements among people that may lead to cooperation and conflict. Constructivism tries to find out the causes behind such cooperation and conflict. But in its research, the constructivist approach differs from the positivist ‘scientific’ approach. The emphasis of constructivism in this case would be more on human ideas and beliefs, rather than on the so-called ‘material’ causes and events, normally advanced by positivists. For a constructivist, cooperation happens because people want to achieve it. In other words, a constructivist may see cooperation as agreements or adjustments of two minds or mindsets. For a positivist, on the contrary, cooperation may take place due to material advantages, such as economic benefits. For a constructivist, idea precedes matter; for the positivist, such as neo-realists, matter precedes ideas. A neo-realist, therefore, would establish anarchy as the reality in international politics; a constructivist, on the other hand, would search the roots of anarchy in human minds.

This discussion on constructivism helps us to identify some important features and leading protagonists of this theory, as are presented in Box 2.15.

An Evaluation of Constructivism in IR

The rise of constructivism has inspired many theoretical debates within the field of IR. Till the mid-1990s, the main theoretical debate within the discipline—it is still present—was between the neo-liberals and the neo-realists. In this debate, the major issues were cooperation, peace and interdependence among states, as opposed to conflict among, anarchy in, and security of the states. With the emergence of constructivism, new debates arose between rationalists—the group was influenced by idealist and realist thoughts—and constructivists; and between critical theorists—influenced by Marxism, liberalism and the Frankfurt School—and constructivists. The core debates in the discipline of IR today revolve around normative issues—put forward by constructivists—versus material forces—highlighted by rationalists and critical theorists; differences over the nature of social structures, and continuity and transformation in international politics.

As observed earlier, constructivists put emphasis on ideas as opposed to matters in the analysis of the international society. They also differ with others on the emergence and activities of social structures in international affairs. Examples have been provided in this respect in our analysis earlier (security community and security dilemma). The constructivists further believe that it is possible to make significant transformation in our theoretical and empirical approaches to the study of IR. For instance, important issues in discipline, such as security, state sovereignty, cooperation or conflict can be studied from a different perspective, without putting too much importance on physical or material factors. For example, conflicts between states can be viewed as ideational conflicts or antagonistic mental constructs of the ruling elites; and not always due to physical or material factors. Therefore, constructivism encourages new empirical research and new orientations in IR that, they believe, are different from neo-liberal, neo-Marxist and neo-realist approaches. With the rise of constructivism, ideational, normative issues strike back in the study of IR.

The emphasis on ideational issues is not beyond question. Are social structures mainly reflections of ideas? Are major activities and events in international affairs due to ideas, beliefs and conceptions of rulers? These questions may generate puzzles that are not easy to solve. Wendt analysed social structures with reference to human ideas and thoughts. But material needs may also propel the ruling elite to form social structures. Was NATO (a security community) formed due to the convergence of ideas of ruling elites, or was it formed due to the prevailing security (and, national) interests of participating states? It is not easy to answer this question. Did ideas precede security fears in this case; or ideas generated because of security fears? If the former is correct, then there would be another related question: is it possible to form ideas before every event in international politics? The answer probably would be negative. However, if the later is true with respect to the formation of the NATO, then material events in IR score over human thoughts and beliefs, a view which the constructivists would like to dislike.

Moreover, pursuing empirical research on the basis of ideas, thoughts and conceptions, termed as inter-subjective beliefs by the constructivists, is extremely difficult and prone to errors. Observation and analysis of these psychological traits are not easy, and may not be conducive to empirical research. Inter-subjective beliefs are uncertain because these may change from time to time. But everything in IR is not frequently changeable. Despite criticisms, the nation-states are still major actors in international politics, as they had been earlier. Now, is there any possibility that nation-states would give up their sovereignty in the near future and pave way for an altogether new discipline of IR? Are such immediate changes in ideas and conceptions of nation-states possible? The answer would probably be negative. Internal contradictions exist in constructivism. The theory propagates an ideational nature of IR based on inter-subjective beliefs. But the very nature of IR, as relations among nation-states, opposes inter-subjectivity in every sphere and calls for continuity in its basic structure—a community of states. Therefore, despite several positive contributions to the study of IR, constructivism falls short of being labelled as a grand theory in the discipline.

Feminism in IR

Feminist theories of IR try to focus on the hitherto neglected role of women in global affairs. Although as a social theory feminism is not quite new, feminist theories of IR have proliferated mainly after the 1980s. It should be mentioned here that there are many forms of feminist social theory: liberal, Marxist, radical, postmodern and others. Similarly, feminism has many voices within the discipline. For instance, the critical theory in IR, in its Marxist tradition and postmodernism, has expressions for feminist causes. While feminism, influenced by Marxism, has highlighted the exploitation of women in society; postmodern feminists have focused more on gender, or on how divisions between the masculine and the feminine constitute a hierarchy of power by which the former subordinates the latter. However, these seemingly different lines of thought converge in the general issue of neglect of women in international affairs, and are broadly known as the feminist theories of IR.

These theories have pointed out that the history and structure of, and knowledge about, IR are all gendered. Some of the major issues that have traditionally dominated IR studies were relations among nations, war, peace, security, cooperation, diplomacy, foreign policy, propaganda and military. According to feminist theorists of IR, these issues reflect a masculine way of thinking. For instance, the realist idea of military security of nations in an international order based on anarchy is a masculine projection that conceals the existence of gender hierarchy in international politics. As Christine Sylvester has argued in her book Feminist Theory and International Relations in a Postmodern Era (1994), this realist concern for security tries to seek protection from an outside threat, with a view to ensure protection of a domestic jurisdiction that fixes continuous subordination of women. Further, feminist IR theorists argue that although wars have been largely caused and fought by men, women form the majority of civil casualties. Besides, women are providers of various support services (domestic, medical, psychological and sexual) during war and militarization. As Cynthia Enloe (1989) observed, women constitute reserve armies in home industries, transnational peace activists, soldiers as well as mothers of soldiers, and revolutionaries in national liberation struggles and civil wars. Enloe added the term ‘international’ to the now-famous radical feminist slogan ‘personal is political’ to make it ‘personal is political, and international’ to suggest that international politics involves personal identities and private lives which remain mostly unanalysed. Feminist scholars of IR have also shown how the formation of the state and the ‘international society’ of states have helped the construction of gender differences through divisions such as private/public, state/society and domestic/international. For instance, the division of private and public spheres within a state has been created by a patriarchal mindset which relegated women to household work that remain largely unnoticed, and unpaid.

Peterson and Runyan have argued in their book Global Gender Issues (1993) that women are a disadvantaged group in the world compared to men. According to them, women make up less than five per cent of heads of state and cabinet ministers; take home only ten per cent of their income, although they make for about sixty per cent of all working hours; nearly seventy per cent women in the world are illiterate; and nearly eighty per cent women are refugees. This high level of gender inequality has been patterned by a hierarchy of power in the international society in which men are superior to women. The authors argued that we live in a gendered world in which masculinity and the values associated with it—such as rationality, activity, strength—get more weight and status than femininity and its values—such as emotionality, passivity, weakness. They point out that a gender-sensitive analysis of international politics may bring the issue of gender inequality into focus and expose how the present international political and economic systems contribute to the subordinate position of women.

Globalization has not been able to alter the plight of women; rather it has enhanced the level of exploitation of femininity. According to Guy Standing (1992), a process of ‘global feminization’ has occurred alongside globalization in which many jobs, formerly dominated by men, have been given to women. But these jobs have become low-wage, contractual and insecure, with very few social benefits. Sassen (1991) points out that ‘free trade’ export processing zones in third world countries are heavily dependent on women’s labour. Big cities which make important centres for global financial transactions are also reliant on a class of women workers, who are often underpaid than their male counterparts. Pettman (1996) argues that a darker ‘underside’ of globalization can be found in the significant growth of ‘sex tourism’, and in trafficking of women and girls for transnational prostitution. According to him, many developing economies get valuable foreign exchange through sex tourism and related ‘activities’ in the age of globalization.

Feminism in IR proved immensely helpful in focusing on women’s plight and women’s demands through gender-sensitive research and theories. These theories not only harp on the exploitation of women in the family, the state, and in domestic and international societies; they have material impact on decision-making. Several countries, for instance, have taken steps to integrate women in mainstream politics and economics. In several Indian states (provinces), one-third of the seats have been reserved for women in institutions of local governance, and a Bill is underway in the Indian Parliament for reservation of one-third seats in the Parliament for women. But these measures, although significant, have only a cosmetic value. Gender inequality can be eradicated only by altering the patriarchal social structure, and by empowering women socially and economically, across the world.

This helps us to identify the distinguishing features of feminism in IR and its leading advocates, which are presented in Box 2.16.

Conclusion

Proponents of feminism in IR not only encourage gender-sensitive research and analysis, they also seek to move beyond fixed gendered ideas of the human society. Some theorists searched for emancipatory paradigms within the human society, and tried to provide alternative models of human relations. J. A. Tickner (1997), for example, noted that a feminist perspective could make IR richer by providing alternative models which may redefine the ideas of production and reproduction, rationality and human relationship. Such models, believes Tickner, would help in building our conceptions about individuals, states and the international society in a better way. They may help to view individuals and states as independent, yet connected, with multiple identities and relations. Individuals and states, if viewed as having autonomous spheres of activities, would not be engaged in a relationship based on hierarchy of power. Yet they must be connected for developing a better way of living. Individuals and states must have multiple relations, beyond any fixed gendered relationship of domination of masculinity. Therefore, feminist perspectives of IR may help the discipline to search for new ideas, conceptions and theories.